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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on September 22, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 17 and 20 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 17 and 20 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments field on September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 10, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that claims 1-20 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least because they recite an improvement to computer technology. First, the Specification provides “sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that claimed invention as providing an improvement.”, and cited ¶¶ 17, 18, 19 and 23. Second, the specific improvements to computing technology described by the Specification are also incorporated into the claim. For example, claim 1 recites: storing, at a first database management system executing at the first customer environment…, executing, by the first database management system a basis data trigger associated with the first basis data table…, executing a basis data batch process, the executing of basis data batch process comprising sending first basis usage data to the basis data service system…. Third, claim 1 covers a particular solution to a problem in a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Fourth, the improvement disclosed and recited by claim 1 is not provided by the judicial exception alone. Indeed, the technical benefits of reducing data storage requirements without causing excessive reductions in performance are provided by the recited technical features including, for example, the first basis data table, the basis data trigger, and basis data batch process arranged as recited by claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, even if the Specification provides “sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” For example, the customer environment can enjoy the benefits of reduced data storage requirements without the cost of “excessive reductions in the performance of ERP applications.” However, such improvements are not explicitly or implicitly provided or described in these claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In addition, “utilizing a reduced set of basis data at the customer environment may reduce the storage and CPU requirements at the customer environment,” which may reduce the operating cost of the enterprise, but this does not improve the functioning of a computer itself.
Second, executing software application, storing data in a database system, receiving/ transmitting (sending)/accessing/retrieving data from/to a remote computer are the basic capabilities of a general-purpose computer. The Federal Circuit has indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Third, Applicant’s claims seek to address a problem that existed and continues to exist outside of the realm of the technology associated with the additionally recited elements. The proposed solution is one that could have been implemented directed by a human performing analogous functions in the mind or by hand (e.g., enterprise resource planning) with the assistance of a general purpose computer applied to facilitate the functions at a high level of generality or with the assistance of additional elements (e.g., hardware computing device, memory, database) performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (e.g., receiving, manipulating, and transmitting data). Thus, the use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the basic capabilities of a compute to perform the generic computer functions do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or another technology or technical field.
Fourth, as discussed above, “utilizing a reduced set of basis data at the customer environment may reduce the storage and CPU requirements at the customer environment” is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself. Further, Applicant’s claims are unlike the claims in Enfish. In Enfish, the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement to the way computers operate—a particular database technique (i.e., a self-referential table)—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). In contrast, the “basis data table” and “basis data usage table” may have “a unique key” as claimed are well-known relational database model developed by E.F. Codd from IBM in the 1970s, that allows any table to be related to another table using a common attribute. All tables in a relational database have an attribute known as the primary key, which is a unique identifier of a row, and each row can be use to create a relationship between different tables using a foreign key—a reference to a primary key of another existing table. https://cloud.google.com/learn/what-is-a-relational-database#:~:text=The%20relational%20database%20model,table%20using%20a%20common%20attribute. See also Chang et al., (US 2008/0091709 A1) discloses the plurality of records having the same unique key within each of said corresponding plurality of tables within another database are linked in a single record (see claim 8); and Lei, (CN 110737692 A) discloses in a distributed storage system, each data record stored in the Hbase corresponding to a rowkey (unique key) for identifying the data recording and data retrieving from the Hbase table according to the rowkey of the data recording (see Background). “The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the Remarks on page 12, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that there is no prima facie ineligibility of claim 1 or of claims 2-8 that depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner’s duty is to given notice of a rejection with sufficient particularity to give Applicant a fair opportunity to response to the rejection. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). The Federal Circuit had repeatedly explained that “the prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). As can be seen on pages 3-7 of the previous Office Action, the Examiner has identified the abstract idea, and explained why the additional elements did not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and did not amount to significantly more the abstract idea. The Examiner carries the burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132 by setting forth a rejection in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). If the Examiner “adequately explain[s] the shortcomings . . . the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut the prima facie case with evidence and/or argument.” Hyatt, 492 F.3d at 1370.
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the feature of claim 1. For example, claim 1 recites: receiving, by the first database management system and from the ERP software application, a basis data request for a basis data unit of the first basis data unit type.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Schmidt discloses “a method for providing generic exposure of enterprise resource planning (ERP) data using a cloud-based (client/server computers), and on-demand service (delivery model). The method includes receiving a data request from a consumer in a cloud-based, gateway services environment, generating a request for a service to handle the received data request, the request including component data request parameters, transmitting the generated request to a service repository (database system) to retrieve an appropriate service definition based upon the component data request parameters” (see ¶ 2); and “the client 140 will process and/or respond to requests and/or responses generated by the GSC 101. For example, the client 140 can receive ERP data from the GSC 101 responsive to an ERP data request made to the GSC 101.” (see ¶ 40). Thus, Schmidt suggests at least providing (the generated enterprise resource planning data from the ERP system to the service repository (database management system), regardless they both executed at the same system. Schmidt also describes “Service-oriented application and integration platforms, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, typically use a “gateway” type system, such as a gateway server, to act as an interface between a client and a suite of ERP applications and/or other applications associated with a customer hardware/software landscape. The gateway server is normally integrated additional components as part of a customer’s on-premises-based ERP environment to provide an interface for internal/external clients wishing to access the ERP system applications and/or associated data.” (see ¶ 1, Fig. 1). Since the gateway server integrates [all] the associated system applications and/or data application together, and therefore, the ERP application and repository (data management system) should be executed at the same server.
Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art, Schmidt teaches the limitations in the form of Applicant claimed.
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the features of claim 1. For example, claim 1 recites: receiving, by the first database management system and from the ERP software application, a basis data request for a basis data unit of the first basis data unit type.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Schmidt discloses a “computer program products for providing generic exposure of enterprise resource planning (ERP) data on a cloud-based, on-demand service, the method includes receiving a data request for backend data stored in a backend system apart from the cloud-based, gateway services environment, generating a request in the gateway services environment for a service to handle the received data request, and transmitting the generated request to a service repository to retrieve an appropriate service definition based upon component data request parameters.” (see Abstract, ¶ 2); and “the client 140 will process and/or respond to requests and/or responses generated by the GSC 101. For example, the client 140 can receive ERP data from the GSC 101 responsive to an ERP data request made to the GSC 101.” (see ¶ 40).
In the Remarks on page 14, Applicant argues that there is no prima facie obviousness of claim 1 or of claims 2-8 that depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and claims 9-20.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen on pages 8-21 of the previous Office Action, the Examiner has set forth in the Office Action by clearly pointed out the paragraph number or the column and line numbers of the cited references for the teaching of each limitation as claimed, clearly pointed out the difference(s) in the claims, and explained why the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made by combining the references, which satisfied the requirements for the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. See MPEP 706/02(j). Thus, the Office Action has established a prima facie case of obviousness for the rejection. If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Rebuttal evidence and arguments can be presented in the specification, In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995). All that is required of the Office is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection, as well as any reference on which the rejection relies, in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of§ 132. Id. at 1363; see also Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("Section 132 is violated when the rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.").
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-8 are directed to a system comprising at least one hardware processor programmed to perform operations, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 9-16 are directed to a method for enterprise resource planning using a first database management system, which falls within of the statutory category of a process. Claims 17-20 are directed to one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage medium, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 9 recites “a method for enterprise resource planning” is generally involved as fundamental economic practice. More specifically, claim 9 recites limitations of “executing an ERP software application, storing a first basis data table at a first database management system, receiving a basis data request for a basis data unit of the first basis data unit type, determining that the basis data unit that is not stored at the first basis data table, accessing the basis data unit from a basis data service system, executing a basis data trigger for writing a description of the basis data request, executing a basis data batch process to sending first basis usage data to the basis data service system”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to methods that allow a user to manage enterprise operations such as commercial interactions by executing an ERP software application at a first database management system. The Specification describes that “an ERP application supporting a human resources operation may store employee records at the DBMSS… An ERP application supporting operations may manage and generate various purchase orders, shipping orders, and/or the like to manage manufacturing or other operations” (see ¶ 2). Thus, under their broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the claim recites an abstract idea falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “a first database management system” and “an ERP software application” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
Dependent claims 10-16 further recite limitations of “determining that the basis data unit has been requested more than a threshold number of time, storing the basis data unit at the first basis data table, accessing first customer attribute data describing a first customer associated with the first customer environment, sending the revised first plurality of the basis data units for the first customer to the first database management system”, which are similar to the abstract idea of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, claims 12-15 further recite the limitations of “using the first customer attribute data to execute a trained computerized model to generate a revised first plurality of the basis data units for the first customer…using the customer attribute data and basis usage data to generate training data for training the trained computerized model, and training the trained computerized model using the training data”. However, training a trained computerize model is no more than training a generic model using a collection of functions and data by a user in some unspecified way without any technological implementation details.
In fact, using a trained computerized model” is merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to learning/training per se, such an argument overlooks the entire education system. Reciting machine learning is placing such learning in a computer context, offering no technological implementation details beyond the conceptual idea to use a machine for learning.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 9 recites the additional elements of “at least one hardware processor”, “an ERP software application” and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium” for performing the steps. The Specification discloses the “at least one hardware processor” at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to preform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying and transmitting information over a network. For example, the Specification describes that “a system for enterprise resource planning (ERP) comprising: at least one hardware processor programmed to perform operations comprising: executing, at a first customer environment, an ERP software application; storing, at a first database management system executing at the first customer environment, a first basis data table comprising a first plurality of basis data units of a first basis data unit type; receiving, by the first data management system and from the ERP software application, a basis data request for a basis data unit of the first basis data unit type.”(See ¶ 63), and “a non-transitory machine-readable comprising instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one hardware processor…to perform operations…” (see ¶ 79). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The courts have held that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 9 recites the additional elements of “at least one hardware processor”, “an ERP software application” and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium” for performing the steps. The Specification discloses the “at least one hardware processor” at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to preform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying and transmitting information over a network. For example, the Specification describes that “a system for enterprise resource planning (ERP) comprising: at least one hardware processor programmed to perform operations comprising: executing, at a first customer environment, an ERP software application; storing, at a first database management system executing at the first customer environment, a first basis data table comprising a first plurality of basis data units of a first basis data unit type; receiving, by the first data management system and from the ERP software application, a basis data request for a basis data unit of the first basis data unit type.”(See ¶ 63), and “a non-transitory machine-readable comprising instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one hardware processor…to perform operations…” (see ¶ 79). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional elements are no more than generic computer components and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including executing, storing, receiving, accessing, and sending/transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 9-16 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 1-8 and 17-20 parallel claims 9-16—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2015/0006732), and in view of Sebilleau et al., (US 10877747, hereinafter: Sebilleau), and further in view of Tian, (US 2017/0220588), and Shelton et al., (US 2021/0315580, hereinafter: Shelton).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt discloses a system for enterprise resource planning (ERP), comprising:
at least one hardware computing device implementing a first customer environment, the at least one hardware computing device comprising at least one hardware processor (see ¶ 33) and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions (see ¶ 77-79) thereon that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor programmed to perform operations (see ¶ 3, ¶ 33, ¶ 44) comprising:
receiving, by the first database management system and from the ERP software application, a basis data request for a basis data unit of the first basis data unit type (see Abstract, ¶ 2, ¶ 28, ¶ 40, ¶ 66);
accessing, by the first database management system, the basis data unit from a basis data service system that is remote from the first customer environment (see ¶ 11, ¶ 22, ¶ 52, ¶ 61, ¶ 86).
Schmidt discloses a computer-implemented method, computer-readable media and computer system for executing enterprise resource planning data using a cloud-based, on-demand service, and gateway services environment (see ¶ 2-3).
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sebilleau in an analogous art for enterprise resource planning discloses
executing, at the first customer environment, an ERP software application (see col. 4, liens 9-27; col. 4, line 55 to col. 5, line 12; col. 12, lines 20-30);
storing, at a first database management system executing at the first customer environment (see col. 1, lines 8-25; col. 5, lines 13-40), a first basis data table comprising a plurality of basis data records indicating a plurality of basis data keys, each record of the plurality of basis data records comprising one of a first plurality of basis data units of a first basis data unit type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt to include the teaching of Sebilleau in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data management. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Schmidt and Sebilleau do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tian in an analogous art for data file management discloses
determining, by the first database management system, that the basis data unit is not stored at the first basis data table (see Abstract, ¶ 20-22, ¶ 43, ¶ 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt and in view of Sebilleau to include the teaching of Tian in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Sebilleau discloses the customization tables may include tables that store customization data (e.g., settings, such as parameters or values) associated with the tasks identified in the operational data (see col. 5, lines 25-40).
Schmidt, Sebilleau and Tian do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Shelton in an analogous art for data analysis discloses
a first basis data table comprising a plurality of basis data records indicating a plurality of basis data keys, each record of the plurality of basis data records comprising one of a first plurality of basis data units of a first basis data unit type (see ¶ 665, ¶ 742, ¶ 846-851, ¶ 869-870, ¶ 942, ¶ 1531);
executing, by the first database management system, a basis data trigger associated with the first basis data table (see ¶ 652, ¶ 710, ¶ 875-877, ¶ 896, ¶ 899), the executing of the basis data trigger comprising writing, to a first basis data usage table at the first database management system, a description of the basis data request (see ¶ 684, ¶ 696, ¶ 1365, ¶ 1390, ¶ 1454), the first basis data usage table comprising a plurality of basis data usage records, the plurality of basis data usage records indicating the plurality of basis data keys (see ¶ 14-16, ¶ 671, ¶ 710, ¶ 846-851, ¶ 1540, ¶ 1546, ¶ 1602, ¶ 1609); and
executing a basis data batch process, the executing of basis data batch process comprising sending first basis usage data to the basis data service system, the first basis usage data comprising the description of the basis data request from the first basis data usage table (see ¶ 627, ¶ 639, ¶ 1454).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt and in view of Sebilleau and Tian to include the teaching of Shelton in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of data analysis, resulting in more focused solution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt discloses the system of claim 1, the first customer environment being at least one of a cloud environment or an on-premise environment (see ¶ 2, ¶ 11, ¶ 22, ¶ 26, ¶ 76).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt discloses the system of claim 1, the operations further comprising:
accessing, by the basis data service system, first customer attribute data describing a first customer associated with the first customer environment (see ¶ 2, ¶ 11, ¶ 36, ¶ 42, ¶ 52);
sending, by the basis data service system, the revised first plurality of basis data units for the first customer to the first database management system (see ¶ 68, ¶ 71, ¶ 83).
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sebilleau discloses
using, by the basis data service system, the first customer attribute data to execute a trained computerized model to generate a revised first plurality of basis data units for the first customer (see col. 2, line 1-20; col. 5, lines 13-40; col. 8, line 64 to col. 9, line 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt to include the teaching of Sebilleau in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data management. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt discloses the system of claim 4, the operations further comprising:
accessing, by the basis data service system, second customer attribute data describing a second customer associated with a second customer environment (see ¶ 2, ¶ 11, ¶ 36, ¶ 42, ¶ 52);
sending, by the basis data service system, the second plurality of basis data units to a second database management system executing at the second customer environment (see ¶ 68, ¶ 71, ¶ 83).
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sebilleau discloses
using, by the basis data service system, the second customer attribute data to execute the trained computerized model to generate a second plurality of basis data units of the first basis data unit type for the second customer (see col. 2, line 1-20; col. 5, lines 13-40; col. 8, line 64 to col. 9, line 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt to include the teaching of Sebilleau in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data management. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt discloses the system of claim 5, the operations further comprising:
sending, by the basis data service system, the second plurality of basis data units to the second database management system (see ¶ 68, ¶ 71, ¶ 83); and
sending, by the basis data service system, basis data unit type (see ¶ 69, ¶ 71-72, ¶ 83).
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt discloses the system of claim 4, the operations further comprising:
accessing, by the basis data service system, customer attribute data describing a plurality of customers (see ¶ 22, ¶ 36-37, ¶ 52);
accessing basis usage data from the plurality of customers, the basis usage data describing usage of basis data by the plurality of customers (see ¶ 52-53, ¶ 59, ¶ 82).
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sebilleau discloses
using the customer attribute data and basis usage data to generate training data for training the trained computerized model (see col. 7, lines 12-52); and
training the trained computerized model using the training data (see col. 7, lines 12-21, and line 53 to col. 8, line 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt to include the teaching of Sebilleau in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data management. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt discloses the system of claim 1, the operations further comprising storing, at the first database management system, a second basis data table comprising basis data unit type (see ¶ 22, ¶ 35, ¶ 62, ¶ 69).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt discloses a method for enterprise resource planning using a first database management system executing at a first customer environment, the first customer environment implemented by at least one hardware computing device (see ¶ 33, ¶ 44), the method comprising:
executing, by the at least one hardware computing device at the first customer environment, an ERP software application, the at least one hardware computing device comprising at least one hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable medium (see ¶ 3, ¶ 33, ¶ 77-80);
receiving, by the first database management system and from the ERP software application, a basis data request for a basis data unit of the first basis data unit type (see Abstract, ¶ 2, ¶ 22, ¶ 28, ¶ 40, ¶ 66);
accessing, by the first database management system, the basis data unit from a basis data service system that is remote from the first customer environment (see ¶ 11, ¶ 22, ¶ 52, ¶ 61, ¶ 86).
Schmidt discloses a computer-implemented method, computer-readable media and computer system for executing enterprise resource planning data using a cloud-based, on-demand service, and gateway services environment (see ¶ 2-3).
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sebilleau in an analogous art for enterprise resource planning discloses
executing, by the at least one hardware computing device at the first customer environment, an ERP software application, an ERP software application, the at least one hardware computing device comprising at least one hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable medium (see col. 4, liens 9-27; col. 4, line 55 to col. 5, line 12; col. 12, lines 20-30);
storing, at the first database management system, a first basis data table (see col. 1, line 28 to col. 2, line 20; col. 3, lines 27-55) comprising a plurality of basis data records indicating a plurality of basis data keys, each record of the plurality of basis data records comprising one of a first plurality of basis data units of a first basis data unit type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt to include the teaching of Sebilleau in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data management. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Schmidt and Sebilleau do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Tian in an analogous art for data file management discloses
determining, by the first database management system, that the basis data unit is not stored at the first basis data table (see Abstract, ¶ 20-22, ¶ 43, ¶ 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt and in view of Sebilleau to include the teaching of Tian in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Sebilleau discloses the customization tables may include tables that store customization data (e.g., settings, such as parameters or values) associated with the tasks identified in the operational data (see col. 5, lines 25-40).
Schmidt, Sebilleau and Tian do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Shelton discloses
a plurality of basis data records indicating a plurality of basis data keys, each record of the plurality of basis data records comprising one of a first plurality of basis data units of a first basis data unit type (see ¶ 665, ¶ 742, ¶ 846-851, ¶ 869-870, ¶ 942, ¶ 1531);
executing, by the first database management system, a basis data trigger associated with the first basis data table (see ¶ 652, ¶ 710, ¶ 875-877, ¶ 896, ¶ 899), the executing of the basis data trigger comprising writing, to a first basis data usage table at the first database management system, a description of the basis data request (see ¶ 684, ¶ 696, ¶ 1365, ¶ 1390, ¶ 1454), the first basis data usage table comprising a plurality of basis data usage records, the plurality of basis data usage records indicating the plurality of basis data keys (see ¶ 14-16, ¶ 671, ¶ 710, ¶ 846-851, ¶ 1540, ¶ 1546, ¶ 1602, ¶ 1609); and
executing by the at least one hardware computing device at the first customer environment, a basis data batch process, the executing of basis data batch process comprising sending first basis usage data to the basis data service system, the first basis usage data comprising the description of the basis data request from the first basis data usage table (see ¶ 627, ¶ 639, ¶ 1454).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt and in view of Sebilleau and Tian to include the teaching of Shelton in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of data analysis, resulting in more focused solution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt discloses the method of claim 9, the first customer environment being at least one of a cloud environment or an on-premise environment (see ¶ 2, ¶ 11, ¶ 26).
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
accessing, by the basis data service system, first customer attribute data describing a first customer associated with the first customer environment (see ¶ 2, ¶ 11, ¶ 36, ¶ 42, ¶ 52);
sending, by the basis data service system, the revised first plurality of basis data units for the first customer to the first database management system (see ¶ 68, ¶ 71, ¶ 83).
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sebilleau discloses
using, by the basis data service system, the first customer attribute data to execute a trained computerized model to generate a revised first plurality of basis data units for the first customer (see col. 2, line 1-20; col. 5, lines 13-40; col. 8, line 64 to col. 9, line 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt to include teaching of Sebilleau in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data management. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
accessing, by the basis data service system, second customer attribute data describing a second customer associated with a second customer environment (see ¶ 2, ¶ 11, ¶ 36, ¶ 42, ¶ 52);
sending, by the basis data service system, the second plurality of basis data units to a second database management system executing at the second customer environment (see ¶ 68, ¶ 71, ¶ 83).
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sebilleau discloses
using, by the basis data service system, the second customer attribute data to execute the trained computerized model to generate a second plurality of basis data units of the first basis data unit type for the second customer (see col. 2, line 1-20; col. 5, lines 13-40; col. 8, line 64 to col. 9, line 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt to include the teaching of Sebilleau in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data management. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising:
sending, by the basis data service system, the second plurality of basis data units to the second database management system (see ¶ 68, ¶ 71, ¶ 83); and
sending, by the basis data service system, basis data unit type (see ¶ 69, ¶ 71-72, ¶ 83).
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
accessing, by the basis data service system, customer attribute data describing a plurality of customers (see ¶ 22, ¶ 36-37, ¶ 52);
accessing basis usage data from the plurality of customers, the basis usage data describing usage of basis data by the plurality of customers (see ¶ 52-53, ¶ 59, ¶ 82).
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Sebilleau discloses
using the customer attribute data and basis usage data to generate training data for training the trained computerized model (see col. 7, lines 12-52); and
training the trained computerized model using the training data (see col. 7, lines 12-21, and col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schmidt to include the teaching of Sebilleau in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution of data management. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Schmidt discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising storing, at the first database management system, a second basis data table comprising basis data unit type (see ¶ 22, ¶ 35, ¶ 62, ¶ 69).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one hardware processor of a customer environment(see ¶ 33, ¶ 77, ¶ 82), cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by the first database management system and from the ERP software application, a basis data request for a basis data unit of the first basis data unit type (see Abstract, ¶ 2, ¶ 22, ¶ 28, ¶ 40, ¶ 66);
accessing, by the first database management system, the basis data unit from a basis data service system that is remote from the first customer environment (see ¶ 11, ¶ 22, ¶ 52, ¶ 61, ¶ 86).
Schmidt discloses a computer-implemented method, computer-readable media