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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to receiving connection from a reporting entity, receiving set of data that represents transactions, mapping data, retrieving data, applying data rules, aggregating data to produce a report, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One – Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 and 11 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method for tracking resource ingestion, the method comprising:
receiving a connection from a reporting entity at an intake interface;
receiving a set of data over the connection, the set of data including a
representation of a resource involved in a transaction;
mapping, via the intake interface, the set of data into fields of a template;
connecting, based on a first field of the template being set, to an external
service to retrieve a value to complete a second field of the template;
applying a rules engine to modify the first field of the template or the second
field of the template to create a compliant template; and
aggregating the compliant template with other compliant templates to produce a report of a class of transactions that includes the transaction.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a rules engine”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “rules engine,” language, "mapping, via the intake interface, the set of data into fields of a template”, “applying…to modify the first field of the template or the second
field of the template to create a compliant template;” and “aggregating the compliant template with other compliant templates to produce a report of a class of transactions that includes the transaction”, in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “receiving a connection from a reporting entity at an intake interface; receiving a set of data over the connection, the set of data including a representation of a resource involved in a transaction;” and “connecting, based on a first field of the template being set, to an external service to retrieve a value to complete a second field of the template;” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements – “a machine readable medium including instructions”, “a circuitry to perform operations”, “a rules engine” and “API” (claims 5 and 15). The “a machine readable medium including instructions”, “a circuitry to perform operations”, “rules engine”, “API” (claims 5 and 15) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the collecting, determining, analyzing and generating steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the receiving steps). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of – “a machine readable medium including instructions”, “a circuitry to perform operations” “a rules engine” and “API” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception of using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the – “a machine readable medium including instructions”, “a circuitry to perform operations”, “rules engine” and “API” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No US 20190205309 A1 to Gadre et al (“Gadre”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication no US 20200293541 A1 to Pigeon et al (“Pigeon”).
As per claims 1 and 11, the claimed subject matter that is met by Gadre includes:
A method for tracking resource ingestion, the method comprising (Gadre: Abstract)
receiving a connection from a reporting entity at an intake interface (Gadre: ¶ 0014, “According to an aspect of another exemplary embodiment, a method for collecting, consolidating and processing data is provided. The method includes receiving, using at least one of said at least one processor, data via a plurality of data streams, aggregating, using at least one of said at least one processor, data received via the plurality of data streams, validating, using at least one of said at least one processor, the received data, and transforming, using at least one of said at least one processor, the received data into standardized data formats”);
receiving a set of data over the connection, the set of data including a
representation of a resource involved in a transaction (Gadre: ¶¶ 0002,0007);
mapping, via the intake interface, the set of data into fields of a template (Gadre: ¶ 0044, “The system and method in accordance with the present disclosure is configured to retrieve the data aggregation chain from the final report field to individual data items that contributed in the calculation of the field and having the ability to backtrack from a computed report field down to an individual transaction. Further, the rules for mapping configuration and/or standardization of date are set and/or change within the distributed processing environment in prior art systems”);
applying a rules engine to modify the first field of the template or the second
field of the template to create a compliant template (Gadre: ¶¶ 0020-0021, “According to an aspect of another exemplary embodiment, a method for collecting, consolidating and processing data, using at least one processor, includes receiving, using at least one of said at least one processor, data via a plurality of data streams, aggregating, using at least one of said at least one processor, data received via the plurality of data streams, validating, using at least one of said at least one processor, the received data, transforming, using at least one of said at least one processor, the received data into standardized data formats, receiving, using at least one of said at least one processor, specific requirements for a particular report job, processing, using at least one of said at least one processor, the received specific requirements, retrieving, using at least one of said at least one processor, previously created rules for report generation, and creating, using at least one of said at least one processor, global report templates using the retrieved rules”);
aggregating the compliant template with other compliant templates to produce a report of a class of transactions that includes the transaction (Gadre: ¶0020).
Gadre fails to specifically teach connecting, based on a first field of the template being set, to an external service to retrieve a value to complete a second field of the template. The examiner provides Pigeon to teach and disclose the claimed feature.
The clamed subject matter that is met by Pigeon includes:
connecting, based on a first field of the template being set, to an external
service to retrieve a value to complete a second field of the template (Pigeon: ¶ 0005, “According to one system, the system includes at least one processor and a server implemented using the at least one processor. The server is configured for: receiving, from a client via a REST API, input in a first format; converting, using predetermined metadata, the input in the first format into input in a second format; sending the input in the second format to a legacy system for performing an operation using the input in the second format; receiving, from the legacy system, output in the second format, wherein the output is based at least in part on the operation performed using the input in the second format; converting, using the predetermined metadata, the output in the second format into output in the first format; and sending, to the client via the REST API, the output in the first format.”);
Gadre teaches a system and method for data transformation and processing. Pigeon teaches a comparable system and method for data transformation and processing. Pigeon offers the embodiment of connecting, based on a first field of the template being set, to an external service to retrieve a value to complete a second field of the template. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of data transformation and processing using data template as disclosed by Pigeon to the system and method of data transformation and processing taught by Gadre for the predicted result of improved system and method of data transformation and processing. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 2 and 12, the claimed subject matter that is met by Gadre includes:
wherein fields of the template are based on a set of directives received from a third party (Gadre: ¶ 0040, ”The system and method for collecting, consolidating and processing data 100 has a Calculation Engine 112 that is advantageously enabled to receive to specific and/or customized requirements for a pre-defined and/or customized job specification, which includes pre-defined and/or customized fields, in the report provided by the Formula Provider 110 and processes the requirement using distributed processing environment 150. The pre-defined and/or customized job specification is, therefore, is performed in accordance with a report template. A plurality of report templates are made available to the system 100 and appropriate report template is selected by the Calculation Engine 112. The Calculation Engine 112, however, works outside the distributed processing environment 150”).
As per claims 4 and 14, the claimed subject matter that is met by Gadre includes:
wherein a serialized form of the fields of the template conforms to a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) family of standards (Gadre: ¶ 0060, “The definitions for the global templates are preferably stored in a standard XML format and outside the distributed processing environment 150. However, other file formats, such as, for example TXT, JSON may be used. These definitions are constant for a particular template and are based upon the requirements of the final report. These definitions are parsed at runtime, a parse tree is created in memory and the incoming data is aggregated, processed as defined.”).
As per claims 5 and 15, Gadre fails to specifically teach wherein the intake interface includes an application programming interface (API) to receive connections. The examiner provides Pigeon to teach and disclose the claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Pigeon includes:
wherein the intake interface includes an application programming interface (API) to receive connections (Pigeon: ¶ 0018, “The subject matter described herein relates to methods, systems, and computer readable media for data translation using a representational state transfer (REST) application programming interface (API).”).
Gadre teaches a system and method for data transformation and processing. Pigeon teaches a system and method for data transformation and processing. Pigeon offers the embodiment of data transformation and processing using API. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of data transformation and processing using API as disclosed by Pigeon to the system and method of data transformation and processing taught by Gadre for the predicted result of improved system and method of data transformation and processing. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 6 and 16, the claimed subject matter that is met by Gadre and Pigeon includes:
wherein the API invokes a validation service to verify that the set of data complies with a validation standard or the template (Pigeon: ¶ 0034, “In some embodiments, DTF 106 or related modules may manage validation rules and metadata used in performing data validation. For example, an operator (e.g., a software or solution architect) or other entity (e.g., management system) may communicate with server 104 or DTF 106 and may provide one or more metadata files, templates, or other information for performing data validation or related data processing. In this example, server 104 or DTF 106 may process and store the received data for subsequent use.”).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Gadre and Pigeon is discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 15.
As per claims 7 and 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by Gadre includes:
determining that data in the set of data does not comply with the validation
standard (Gadre: ¶ 0038, “The data validation and standardization of the system 100 is performed by a Data Validator and Standardizer 108. The Data Validator and Standardizer 108 of the system 100 is advantageously enabled to read the uploaded files or read data from data streams. The Data Validator and Standardizer 108 validates files against pre-defined constraints and migrates the Data to the ephemeral database 102. The Data Validator and Standardizer 106 further ensures that the data that is migrated to ephemeral database 102 is standardized and rejects invalid data.”); and
writing a failure record to a failure field of the template (Gadre: ¶ 0038).
As per claims 8 and 18, Gadre fails to specifically teach wherein the data in the set of data that does not comply with the validation standard is written to a third field. The examiner provides Pigeon to teach and disclose the claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Pigeon includes:
wherein the data in the set of data that does not comply with the validation standard is written to a third field (Pigeon: ¶ 0120, “In some embodiments, the conversion rules may include a rule for validating a value in the first format and/or a rule for changing the value in the first format that is invalid to a valid value in the second format”).
Gadre teaches a system and method for data transformation and processing. Pigeon teaches a system and method for data transformation and processing. Pigeon offers the embodiment of data validation and writing invalid data to a set of fields. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of data transformation and processing using data validation as disclosed by Pigeon to the system and method of data transformation and processing taught by Gadre for the predicted result of improved system and method of data transformation and processing employing data validation. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 9 and 19, the claimed subject matter that is met by Gadre includes:
wherein the external service provides information on a user that initiated the transaction (Gadre: ¶¶ 0008-0010).
As per claim 10 and 20, Gadre fails to specifically teach wherein applying the rules engine to modify the first field of the template or the second field of the template to create the compliant template includes rewriting the first field based on a rule of the rules engine. The examiner provides Pigeon to teach and disclose the claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Pigeon includes:
teach wherein applying the rules engine to modify the first field of the template or the second field of the template to create the compliant template includes rewriting the first field based on a rule of the rules engine (Pigeon: ¶¶ 0064-0066).
Gadre teaches a system and method for data transformation and processing. Pigeon teaches a system and method for data transformation and processing. Pigeon offers the embodiment of creating compliant template using rules engine. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of data transformation and processing by creating compliant template using rules engine as disclosed by Pigeon to the system and method of data transformation and processing taught by Gadre for the predicted result of improved system and method of data transformation and processing by creating compliant template using rules engine. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadre in view of Pigeon in view of Official Notice (“Official Notice”).
As per claims 3 and 13, Gadre and Pigeon fail to specifically teach fields of the template are serialized for transport. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to serialize templates for transport. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the systems and methods for data transformation and processing as taught by Gadre and Pigeon the teachings of Official Notice, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (routine steps in HTTP-based API communication), and in the combination 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TANJIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM -5 PM.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/SYED SHAFKAT TANJIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights