Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. The claims in the nonelected Group II (claim 19) has been canceled by the Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention:
First, initially, independent claim 16 recites “…data storage/the data storage”. However, dependent claim 17 then recites “data storage”. The scope of this limitation is confusing because it is unclear whether “data storage” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “data storage/the data storage” in independent claim 16? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes “data storage” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “data storage/the data storage” in independent claim 16. Appropriated correction is required.
Second, initially, independent claim 16 recites “….an automation-sequence initiator engine/said automation-sequence initiator engine”. However, dependent claim 17 then recites “an automation-sequence initiator engine for use in a system according to claim 16”. The scope of this limitation is confusing because it is unclear whether “an automation-sequence initiator engine” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “….an automation-sequence initiator engine/said automation-sequence initiator engine” in independent claim 16? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes “an automation-sequence initiator engine” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “….an automation-sequence initiator engine/said automation-sequence initiator engine” in independent claim 16. Appropriated correction is required.
Third, initially, independent claim 16 recites “….a computer-implement ERP system/said ERP system/the ERP system”, and “ERP object data/the ERP object data”. However, dependent claim 17 then recites “an ERP system”, and “ERP object data”. The scope of these limitations are confusing because it is unclear whether “an ERP system”, and “ERP object data” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “….a computer-implement ERP system/said ERP system/the ERP system”, and “ERP object data/the ERP object data” in independent claim 16? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes “an ERP system”, and “ERP object data” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “….a computer-implement ERP system/said ERP system/the ERP system”, and “ERP object data/the ERP object data” in independent claim 16. Appropriated correction is required.
Fourth, initially, independent claim 16 recites “….a message client/the message client”. However, dependent claim 17 then recites “….. retrieve from a message client ”. The scope of this limitation is confusing because it is unclear whether “a message client” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “a message client/the message client” in independent claim 16? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes “a message client” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “a message client/the message client” in independent claim 16. Appropriated correction is required.
Fifth, initially, independent claim 16 recites “….an electronic message/the electronic message”. However, dependent claim 17 then recites “….. an electronic message… ”. The scope of this limitation is confusing because it is unclear whether “an electronic message” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “an electronic message/the electronic message” in independent claim 16? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes “an electronic message” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “an electronic message/the electronic message” in independent claim 16. Appropriated correction is required.
Sixth, initially, independent claim 16 recites “….a first organizational entity/the first organizational entity”. However, dependent claim 17 then recites “….. a first organizational entity… ”. The scope of this limitation is confusing because it is unclear whether “a first organizational entity” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “a first organizational entity/the first organizational entity” in independent claim 16? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes “a first organizational entity” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “a first organizational entity/the first organizational entity” in independent claim 16. Appropriated correction is required.
Seventh, initially, independent claim 16 recites “…entity-signifying metadata/the entity-signifying metadata ”. However, dependent claim 17 then recites “….. entity-signifying metadata … ”. The scope of this limitation is confusing because it is unclear whether “entity-signifying metadata” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “entity-signifying metadata/the entity-signifying metadata” in independent claim 16? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes “entity-signifying metadata” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “entity-signifying metadata/the entity-signifying metadata” in independent claim 16. Appropriated correction is required.
Eighth, initially, independent claim 16 recites “…a further organizational entity/the further organizational entity”. However, dependent claim 17 then recites “a further organizational entity … ”. The scope of this limitation is confusing because it is unclear whether “a further organizational entity … ” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “…a further organizational entity/the further organizational entity” in independent claim 16? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes “a further organizational entity … ” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “…a further organizational entity/the further organizational entity” in independent claim 16. Appropriated correction is required.
Nineth, initially, independent claim 16 recites “…an automation sequence/the automation sequence”. However, dependent claim 17 then recites “an automation sequence … ”. The scope of this limitation is confusing because it is unclear whether “an automation sequence … ” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “an automation sequence/the automation sequence” in independent claim 16? For the purpose of examination, the Examiner construes an automation sequence … ” in dependent claim 17 is referring back to “an automation sequence/the automation sequence” in independent claim 16. Appropriated correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. The claimed invention (Claims 1-18 and 20) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Process”, which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
5. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claims 1-15: Yes, these claims are method and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claim 16-18 and 20: Yes, these claims are system, which recite a computing system comprising data storage and on which is running an automation-sequence initiator engine….., and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
6. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 16 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Process”:
Steps/Limitations 3 and 4 of analyse the message to identify entity-signifying metadata in the message (limitation 3); identify a further organisational entity, wherein, if a further organisational entity is identified: identify relationship data associated with the further organisational entity; select a sequence based on the relationship data; initiate the sequence, and process the message in accordance with the initiated sequence (part of limitation 4) falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (include subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
Further, the limitations 3 and 4 mentioned above of analyse the message to identify entity-signifying metadata in the message (limitation 3); identify a further organisational entity, wherein, if a further organisational entity is identified: identify relationship data associated with the further organisational entity; select a sequence based on the relationship data; initiate the sequence, and process the message in accordance with the initiated sequence (part of limitation 4) also fall within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human being can observing/evaluating/analyzing the message in order to identify entity-signifying metadata in the message. Next, the human being can observing/evaluating/analyzing data in order whether or not identify the further organizational entity; if a further organisational entity is identified, the human being can observing/evaluating/analyzing the further organisational entity in order to identify relationship data associated with the further organisational entity; select a sequence based on the relationship data; initiate the sequence, and process the message in accordance with the initiated sequence.
Independent claim 16, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites underlined additional elements (i.e., a computing system comprising data storage and on which is running an automation-sequence initiator engine; a messaging client; and a computer-implemented ERP system associated with a first organisational entity; wherein said computing system is communicatively connected to said ERP system and said messaging client, wherein said automation-sequence initiator engine is configured to….; electronic message; automation sequence….) to perform abstract steps/limitations 3-4 mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform/apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 3-4 mentioned above; thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 16, limitations 1-2 and part of limitation 4 of “download ERP object data from the ERP system and store the ERP object data on the data storage” (limitation 1); “retrieve from the messaging client an electronic message sent to the first organizational entity” (limitation 2); and “query the ERP object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity” (part of limitation 4) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, storing data and transmitting data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, again, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Again, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, again, the additional element of using generic computer components (i.e., a computing system comprising data storage and on which is running an automation-sequence initiator engine; a messaging client; and a computer-implemented ERP system associated with a first organisational entity; wherein said computing system is communicatively connected to said ERP system and said messaging client, wherein said automation-sequence initiator engine is configured to….; electronic message; automation sequence….) to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. see MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional steps/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 16 (step 2B): The additional underlined elements in claim 16 of (i.e., i.e., a computing system comprising data storage and on which is running an automation-sequence initiator engine; a messaging client; and a computer-implemented ERP system associated with a first organisational entity; wherein said computing system is communicatively connected to said ERP system and said messaging client, wherein said automation-sequence initiator engine is configured to….; electronic message; automation sequence.) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the underlined additional elements “i.e., a computing system comprising data storage and on which is running an automation-sequence initiator engine; a messaging client; and a computer-implemented ERP system associated with a first organisational entity; wherein said computing system is communicatively connected to said ERP system and said messaging client, wherein said automation-sequence initiator engine is configured to….; electronic message; automation sequence….” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform/apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 3-4 mentioned above; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f). in claim 16, limitations 1-2 and part of limitation 4 of “download ERP object data from the ERP system and store the ERP object data on the data storage” (limitation 1); “retrieve from the messaging client an electronic message sent to the first organizational entity” (limitation 2); and “query the ERP object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity” (part of limitation 4) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, storing data and transmitting data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When revaluating the limitations 1-2 and part of limitation 4 mentioned above of “download ERP object data from the ERP system and store the ERP object data on the data storage” (limitation 1); “retrieve from the messaging client an electronic message sent to the first organizational entity” (limitation 2); and “query the ERP object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity” (part of limitation 4) in step 2B here, these gathering data/receiving data, storing data and transmitting data/ sending data are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of generic computer to display data/transmit data/send data through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and is/are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "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); 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); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Thus, evidences has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above additional steps/additional elements/additional limitations do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per independent claim 1 and dependent claim 17: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 1 and a system claim 17 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the system claim(s) 16. The additional underlined components (i.e., a computing system on which is running an automation-sequence initiator engine; electronic message, automation sequence) described in independent claims 1 and claim 17 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. They are merely using as tools to implement the identified abstract idea and/or are general link to technological environment. Thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-15, 18 and 20 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1, 16 and 17 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Please note that in claims 5 and 12, the additional element (e.g., AI-analysis function) is recited at a high level of generality and/or is recited as performing generic computer or other machinery functions routinely used in the computer applications (as tool to perform the identified abstract idea); thus, it does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, Looking at the limitations as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15, 18 and 20 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post et al; (US 2013/0041958A1), in view of Wang et al; (US 2018/0096295 A1):
9. Independent Claims 1: Post teaches a method of initiating an automation sequence, said method comprising:
at a computing system on which is running an automation-sequence initiator engine:
storing on data storage (e.g., project management database 104 in fig. 1, paras 0058-0067, 0071, 0083-0084) object data (paras 0058-0067, 0071, 0083-0084) associated with a first organisational entity (e.g., XCorporation in paras 0070-0071, 0076, 0083) (part of step 1) {At least paras 0005-0007 in context with fig. 1A paras 0034, 0037-0038, 0058-0067 especially para 0038, 0063-0067, 0071, fig. 2A especially paras 0083-0084};
retrieving from a messaging client an electronic message sent to the first organizational entity (step 2) {At least paras fig. 1A paras 0069-0073; fig. 1B paras 0076-0080; fig. 2A especially para 0087, 0089; fig. 3A paras 0092-0101; fig. 3B paras 0103-0139; and also fig. 4D paras 0164-0169};
analysing the electronic message to identify entity-signifying metadata (e.g., parameters such as project label/name, field identifier , “to” field, “from” field, “subject” field and attachment links…etc., in para 0089-0090, 0097-0101 in context with fig. 3B paras 0103-0119, see example of parameters such as task name, identifier of the sender be provided to identify the task creator, email address of the sender, names of individuals/employees/consultants..etc., that may be employed to accomplish the new task, name of project…etc.,), in the message (step 3) {At least figs. 2A especially para 0089; fig. 2B especially paras 0090-0091; fig. 3A paras 0097-0101; fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 especially paras 0111-0119. Also see fig. 4A through 4D paras 0141-0169};
querying the object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity {At least fig. 3B especially paras 0120-0139 in context with paras 0111-0119 especially para 0123, see example: for parameter 322 (Name of Task Creator), business engine 158 may check data 362 to determine if an e-mail address has been extracted and if that address may correspond to a name of a user within project management database 104 (such as Rachel Reid)…etc.,} , wherein, if a further organisational entity is identified (At least para 0131 in context with paras 0113, 0123, 0134) (part of step 4) {At least fig. 3B paras 0120-0139 especially paras 0123-0131 in context with paras 0043-0048. Also see fig. 4C especially paras 0162-0163};
identifying relationship data (e.g., an employee name/task creator: Rachel Reid in para 0123 in context with paras 0131, 0134) associated with the further organisational entity (step 5) {At least paras 0123 in context with paras 0131-0132, 0134};
selecting an automation sequence based on the relationship data (step 6) {At least fig. 3B para 0131-0132 especially para 0132, see creation of a new task object 370…etc., in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 00091};
initiating the automation sequence (step 7) {At least fig. 3B paras 0132-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 00091}, and
processing the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence (step 7) {At least fig. 3B paras 0132-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 00091}.
However, Post does not explicitly teach the underline features: “downloading and storing on data storage ERP object data from an ERP system associated with a first organisational entity (part of step 1); and querying the ERP object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity, wherein, if a further organisational entity is identified (par of step 4);
Wang teaches a general concept of downloading and storing on data storage (e.g., analytic schema 220 in fig. 2 para 0018) ERP data from an ERP system associated with an organizational entity {AT least fig. 2 para 0018}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “storing on data storage object data associated with a first organisational entity” of Post to include “downloading and storing on data storage ERP data from an ERP system associated with an organizational entity”, taught by Wang so that the combination of Post and Wand would yield “downloading and storing on data storage ERP object data from an ERP system associated with a first organisational entity;……….; querying the ERP object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to
identify a further organisational entity………”. One would be motivated to do this since storing data in an Enterprise Resources Planning/ERP system offers significant advantages that improve efficiency, accuracy, and decision-making cross an organization, and downloading and storing on data storage ERP data from an ERP system would allow the organization to maintain complete control over the data lifecycle-from ingestion to archival, enable the organization to eliminates network-dependent access delays, ensure faster data retrieval and real-time analysis while enhance security and compliance.
The Examiner notes regarding claim 1 above: The Examiner respectfully notes that the method claim 1 recite “contingent limitations” {alternative limitations such as “….., wherein if a further organization entity is identified, identify relationship data associated with the further organisational entity; select an automation sequence based on the relationship data; initiate the automation sequence, and process the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence (option 1), and “if a further organization entity is not identified”, then these functions (identify relationship data associated with the further organisational entity;
select an automation sequence based on the relationship data; initiate the automation sequence, and process the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence) are not required to be happened/given no patentable weight (option 2)}. According to MPEP 2111.04, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B”. Therefore, in the method claim 1, in light of MPEP 2111.04 regarding “contingent limitations”, the Examiner is not required to address both options 1 and option 2 above using prior art. In other word, under broadest reasonable interpretation, only option 1 or option 2 is needed to be addressed using prior art for the method claim 1. Even though, the above in claim 1, the prior art (the combination of Post and Wang) covers all the functions in claim 1, the Office respectfully suggests the Applicant to amend the language in claim 1 to avoid “contingent limitation” in order for all the functions in the claim 1 to be given weight.
10. Independent claim 16: Post teaches a system for initiating automation sequences, said system comprising:
a computing system comprising data storage {e.g., management database 104 in figs. 1A-1B, paras 0058-0067, 0071, 0083-0084) and on which is running an automation-sequence initiator engine (limitation 1) {At least figs. 1A-1B paras 0037-0080; figs. 2A-2B paras 0081-0091; figs. 3A-3B paras 0092-0139} ;
a messaging client (limitation 2) {At least figs. 1A-1B especially paras 0041-0063, 0069-0080. figs. 2A-2B paras 0081-0091; figs. 3A-3B paras 0092-0139}; and
the computer system associated with a first organizational entity (e.g., XCorporation) {At least figs 1A-1B paras 0070-0071, 0076, 0083}, wherein said computing system is communicatively connected said messaging client {At least figs. 1A-1B paras 0037-0080; figs. 2A-2B paras 0081-0091; figs. 3A-3B paras 0092-0139}, wherein said automation-sequence initiator engine (part of limitation 3) {At least figs. 1A-1B paras 0037-0080; figs. 2A-2B paras 0081-0091; figs. 3A-3B paras 0092-0139} is configured to :
store the object data (paras 0058-0067, 0071, 0083-0084) on the data storage (e.g., management database 104 in fig. 1, paras 0058-0067, 0071, 0083-0084) (limitation 3a) {At least paras 0005-0007 in context with fig. 1A paras 0034, 0037-0038, 0058-0067 especially para 0038, 0063-0067, 0071, fig. 2A especially paras 0083-0084};
retrieve from the messaging client an electronic message sent to the first organizational entity (limitation 3b) {At least paras fig. 1A paras 0069-0073; fig. 1B paras 0076-0080; fig. 2A especially para 0087, 0089; fig. 3A paras 0092-0101; fig. 3B paras 0103-0139; and also fig. 4D paras 0164-0169};
analyse the electronic message to identify entity-signifying metadata (e.g., parameters such as project label/name, field identifier , “to” field, “from” field, “subject” field and attachment links…etc., in para 0089-0090, 0097-0101 in context with fig. 3B paras 0103-0119, see example of parameters such as task name, identifier of the sender be provided to identify the task creator, email address of the sender, names of individuals/employees/consultants..etc., that may be employed to accomplish the new task, name of project…etc.,) in the message (limitation 3c) {At least figs. 2A especially para 0089; fig. 2B especially paras 0090-0091; fig. 3A paras 0097-0101; fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 especially paras 0111-0119. Also see fig. 4A through 4D paras 0141-0169};
query the object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity {At least fig. 3B especially paras 0120-0139 in context with paras 0111-0119 especially para 0123, see example: for parameter 322 (Name of Task Creator), business engine 158 may check data 362 to determine if an e-mail address has been extracted and if that address may correspond to a name of a user within project management database 104 (such as Rachel Reid)…etc.,}, wherein, if a further organisational entity is identified (At least para 0131 in context with paras 0113, 0123, 0134), the automation-sequence initiator engine is further configured to (part of limitation 3d) {At least fig. 3B paras 0120-0139 especially paras 0123-0131 in context with paras 0043-0048. Also see fig. 4C especially paras 0162-0163}:
identify relationship data (e.g., an employee name/task creator: Rachel Reid in para 0123 in context with paras 0113, 0131, 0134) associated with the further organisational entity {At least paras 0123 in context with paras 0131-0132, 0134};
select an automation sequence based on the relationship data {At least fig. 3B para 0131-0132 especially para 0132, see creation of a new task object 370…etc., in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 00091};
initiate the automation sequence {At least fig. 3B paras 0132-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 00091}, and
process the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence {At least fig. 3B paras 0132-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 00091}.
However, Post does not explicitly teach the underlined features: a computer-implemented ERP system associated with a first organisational entity; wherein said computing system is communicatively connected to said ERP system and said messaging client, wherein said automation-sequence initiator engine is configured to (part of limitation 3): download ERP object data from the ERP system and store the ERP object data on the data storage (part of limitation 3a); and “query the ERP object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity…” (part of limitation 3d).
Wang teach a general concept of:
a computing system comprising data storage (e.g., analytical database 220 in para 0018), and on which is running an automation engine (limitation 1, already taught by Post above) {At least fig. 2 para 0018};
a computer-implemented ERP system {At least fig. 2 para 0018: see ERP database 210 may be stored in a cloud computing environment remote from the supplier); wherein said computing system is communicatively connected to said ERP system (part of limitation 3) {At least fig. 2 para 0018}, wherein said automation is configured to:
downloading and storing on data storage (e.g., analytic schema 220 in fig. 2 para 0018) ERP data from an ERP system associated with an organizational entity (part of limitation 3a) {At least fig. 2 para 0018};
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “a computing system comprising data storage and on which is running an automation-sequence initiator engine; the computer system associated with a first organizational entity, wherein said computing system is communicatively connected said messaging client, wherein said automation-sequence initiator engine is configured to: store the object data on the data storage; and query the object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity…….” of Post to include “a computing system comprising data storage, and on which is running an automation engine; a computer-implemented ERP system; wherein said computing system is communicatively connected to said ERP system, wherein said automation is configured to downloading and storing on data storage ERP data from an ERP system associated with an organizational entity”, taught by Wang so the combination of Post and Wang would yield: “a computing system comprising data storage and on which is running an automation-
sequence initiator engine; a messaging client; and a computer-implemented ERP system associated with a first organisational entity; wherein said computing system is communicatively connected to said ERP system and said messaging client, wherein said automation-sequence initiator engine is configured to: download ERP object data from the ERP system and store the ERP object data on the data storage;……..query the ERP object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity, wherein, if a further organisational entity is identified, the automation-sequence initiator engine is further configured to:……the initiated automation sequence”. One would be motivated to do this since storing data in an Enterprise Resources Planning/ERP system offers significant advantages that improve efficiency, accuracy, and decision-making cross an organization, and downloading and storing on data storage ERP data from an ERP system would allow the organization to maintain complete control over the data lifecycle-from ingestion to archival, enable the organization to eliminates network-dependent access delays, ensure faster data retrieval and real-time analysis while enhance security and compliance.
11. Claim 17: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 16. Post further teaches said automation-sequence initiator engine configured to:
storing on data storage (e.g., project management database 104 in fig. 1, paras 0058-0067, 0071, 0083-0084) object data (paras 0058-0067, 0071, 0083-0084) associated with a first organisational entity (e.g., XCorporation in paras 0070-0071, 0076, 0083) (part of step 1) {At least paras 0005-0007 in context with fig. 1A paras 0034, 0037-0038, 0058-0067 especially para 0038, 0063-0067, 0071, fig. 2A especially paras 0083-0084};
retrieving from a messaging client an electronic message sent to the first organizational entity (step 2) {At least paras fig. 1A paras 0069-0073; fig. 1B paras 0076-0080; fig. 2A especially para 0087, 0089; fig. 3A paras 0092-0101; fig. 3B paras 0103-0139; and also fig. 4D paras 0164-0169};
analysing the electronic message to identify entity-signifying metadata (e.g., parameters such as project label/name, field identifier , “to” field, “from” field, “subject” field and attachment links…etc., in para 0089-0090, 0097-0101 in context with fig. 3B paras 0103-0119, see example of parameters such as task name, identifier of the sender be provided to identify the task creator, email address of the sender, names of individuals/employees/consultants..etc., that may be employed to accomplish the new task, name of project…etc.,), in the message (step 3) {At least figs. 2A especially para 0089; fig. 2B especially paras 0090-0091; fig. 3A paras 0097-0101; fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 especially paras 0111-0119. Also see fig. 4A through 4D paras 0141-0169};
querying the object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity {At least fig. 3B especially paras 0120-0139 in context with paras 0111-0119 especially para 0123, see example: for parameter 322 (Name of Task Creator), business engine 158 may check data 362 to determine if an e-mail address has been extracted and if that address may correspond to a name of a user within project management database 104 (such as Rachel Reid)…etc.,} , wherein, if a further organisational entity is identified (At least para 0131 in context with paras 0113, 0123, 0134) (part of step 4) {At least fig. 3B paras 0120-0139 especially paras 0123-0131 in context with paras 0043-0048. Also see fig. 4C especially paras 0162-0163};
identifying relationship data (e.g., an employee name/task creator: Rachel Reid in para 0123 in context with paras 0131, 0134) associated with the further organisational entity (step 5) {At least paras 0123 in context with paras 0131-0132, 0134};
selecting an automation sequence based on the relationship data (step 6) {At least fig. 3B para 0131-0132 especially para 0132, see creation of a new task object 370…etc., in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 00091};
initiating the automation sequence (step 7) {At least fig. 3B paras 0132-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 00091}, and
processing the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence (step 7) {At least fig. 3B paras 0132-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 00091}.
However, Post does not explicitly teach the underline features: “downloading and storing on data storage ERP object data from an ERP system associated with a first organisational entity (part of step 1); and querying the ERP object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to identify a further organisational entity, wherein, if a further organisational entity is identified (par of step 4);
Wang teaches a general concept of downloading and storing on data storage (e.g., analytic schema 220 in fig. 2 para 0018) ERP data from an ERP system associated with an organizational entity {AT least fig. 2 para 0018}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “storing on data storage object data associated with a first organisational entity” of Post to include “downloading and storing on data storage ERP data from an ERP system associated with an organizational entity”, taught by Wang so that the combination of Post and Wand would yield “downloading and storing on data storage ERP object data from an ERP system associated with a first organisational entity;……….; querying the ERP object data in the data storage with the entity-signifying metadata to
identify a further organisational entity………”. One would be motivated to do this since storing data in an Enterprise Resources Planning/ERP system offers significant advantages that improve efficiency, accuracy, and decision-making cross an organization, and downloading and storing on data storage ERP data from an ERP system would allow the organization to maintain complete control over the data lifecycle-from ingestion to archival, enable the organization to eliminates network-dependent access delays, ensure faster data retrieval and real-time analysis while enhance security and compliance.
12. Claim 2: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein if a further organisational entity is identified {Post: At least para 0131 in context with paras 0113, 0123, 0134. Also see fig. 4C especially paras 0162-0163}, the method further comprises:
generating a mapping between an address from which the electronic message was sent and the identified further organisational entity {Post: At least para 0131 in context with paras 0113, 0123, 0134}, and
storing the mapping to mapping storage {Post: At least paras 0113, 0123, 0131-0139. Also see fig. 4C especially para 0163 in context with paras 0103-0139}.
The Examiner notes regarding claim 2 above: The Examiner respectfully notes that the method claim 2 recite “contingent limitations” {alternative limitations such as “….., wherein if a further organisational entity is identified, the method further comprises: generating a mapping between an address from which the electronic message was sent and the identified further organisational entity; and storing the mapping to mapping storage (option 1), and “if a further organisational entity is not identified”, then these functions (generating a mapping between an address from which the electronic message was sent and the identified further organisational entity; and storing the mapping to mapping storage) are not required to be happened/given no patentable weight (option 2)}. According to MPEP 2111.04, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B”. Therefore, in the method claim 2, in light of MPEP 2111.04 regarding “contingent limitations”, the Examiner is not required to address both options 1 and option 2 above using prior art. In other word, under broadest reasonable interpretation, only option 1 or option 2 is needed to be addressed using prior art for the method claim 2. Even though, the above in claim 2, the prior art (the combination of Post and Wang) covers all the functions in claim 2, the Office respectfully suggests the Applicant to amend the language in claim 2 to avoid “contingent limitation” in order for all the functions in the claim 2 to be given weight.
13. Claim 3: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches on retrieving the electronic message, identifying an address from which the electronic message was sent;
querying the mapping storage to identify if a pre-existing mapping exists between the address from which the electronic message was sent and a pre-identified organisational entity {Post: At least para 0131 in context with paras 0078, 0113, 0123, 0134. Also see fig. 4C especially paras 0162-0163}, and if so:
identifying relationship data (Post: e.g., an employee name/task creator: Rachel Reid in para 0123 in context with paras 0131, 0134) associated with the pre-identified organisational entity {Post: At least para 0131 in context with paras 0078, 0113, 0123, 0134. Also see fig. 4C especially paras 0162-0163};
selecting an automation sequence based on the relationship data {Post: At least fig. 3B para 0131-0132 especially para 0132, see creation of a new task object 370…etc., in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 0091};
initiating the automation sequence {Post: At least fig. 3B paras 0132-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 0091}, and
processing the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence {Post: At least fig. 3B paras 0132-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 0091}.
The Examiner notes regarding claim 3 above: The Examiner respectfully notes that the method claim 3 recite “contingent limitations” {alternative limitations such as “….., if a pre-existing mapping exists between the address from which the electronic message was sent and a pre-identifed organizational entity, an if so, identifying relationship data associated with the pre-identified organisational entity; selecting an automation sequence based on the relationship data; initiating the automation sequence; and processing the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence (option 1), and “if a pre-existing mapping not exists between the address from which the electronic message was sent and a pre-identifed organizational entity, an if not so”, then these functions (identifying relationship data associated with the pre-identified organisational entity; selecting an automation sequence based on the relationship data; initiating the automation sequence; and processing the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence) are not required to be happened/given no patentable weight (option 2)}. According to MPEP 2111.04, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B”. Therefore, in the method claim 3, in light of MPEP 2111.04 regarding “contingent limitations”, the Examiner is not required to address both options 1 and option 2 above using prior art. In other word, under broadest reasonable interpretation, only option 1 or option 2 is needed to be addressed using prior art for the method claim 3. Even though, the above in claim 3, the prior art (the combination of Post and Wang) covers all the functions in claim 3, the Office respectfully suggests the Applicant to amend the language in claim 3 to avoid “contingent limitation” in order for all the functions in the claim 3 to be given weight.
14. Claim 4: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches:
identifying process context data from the electronic message {Post: At least fig. 3B especially paras 0110-0139 especially paras 0110-0119}, and
selecting an automation sequence based on the relationship data and the process context data {Post: At least fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 especially paras 0120-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163}.
15. Claim 6: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 2. The combination further teaches: adaptively processing the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence and the process context data {Post: At least fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 especially paras 0120-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163}.
16. Claim 7: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches:
identifying one or more ERP objects from the ERP object data associated with the initiated automation sequence {Post: At least fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 especially paras 0120-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163}, and
adaptively processing the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence and the one or more ERP objects {Post: At least fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 especially paras 0120-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 0091}.
17. Claim 8: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches: wherein the entity-signifying metadata is a first type of entity-signifying metadata (e.g., email address in paras 0078, 0164, 0113, 0123, 0134 or target domain in para 0164 in context with para 0081) {Post: At least para 0078, fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 especially paras with paras 0113, 0123, 0134. Also see para 0164 in context with para 0081}.
18. Claim 9: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 8. The combination further teaches: wherein if on querying the data storage with the first type of entity-signifying metadata a further organisational entity is not identified {Post: At least fig. 3A paras 0095-0101 in context with paras 0164, 0081. Also see fig. 4C paras 0157-0163 especially paras 0161-0162 in context with paras 0164, 0081}, the method further comprises:
analysing the electronic message to identify a second type of entity-signifying metadata in the message {Post: At least fig. 4C paras 0157-0163 especially paras 0161-0162 in context with fig. 3B paras 0103-0139}, and
querying the data storage with the second type of entity-signifying metadata to identify the further organisational entity {Post: At least fig. 4C paras 0157-0163 especially paras 0161-0162 in context with fig. 3B paras 0103-0139}.
The Examiner notes regarding claim 9 above: The Examiner respectfully notes that the method claim 9 recite “contingent limitations” {alternative limitations such as “…..,wherein if on querying the data storage with the first type of entity-signifying metadata a further organisational entity is not identified, the method further comprises: analysing the electronic message to identify a second type of entity-signifying metadata in the message; and querying the data storage with the second type of entity-signifying metadata to identify the further organisational entity” (option 1), and “if on querying the data storage with the first type of entity-signifying metadata a further organisational entity is identified”, then these functions (analysing the electronic message to identify a second type of entity-signifying metadata in the message; and querying the data storage with the second type of entity-signifying metadata to identify the further organisational entity) are not required to be happened/given no patentable weight (option 2)}. According to MPEP 2111.04, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B”. Therefore, in the method claim 9, in light of MPEP 2111.04 regarding “contingent limitations”, the Examiner is not required to address both options 1 and option 2 above using prior art. In other word, under broadest reasonable interpretation, only option 1 or option 2 is needed to be addressed using prior art for the method claim 9. Even though, the above in claim 9, the prior art (the combination of Post and Wang) covers all the functions in claim 9, the Office respectfully suggests the Applicant to amend the language in claim 9 to avoid “contingent limitation” in order for all the functions in the claim 9 to be given weight.
19. Claim 10: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 9. The combination further teaches wherein the first type of entity-signifying metadata comprises an originating domain (Post: e.g., target domain in para 0164 in context with para 0081 and in context with fig. 3B paras 0103-0139) from which the electronic message was sent, and the second type of entity-signifying metadata comprises message header data indicative of a contact address (Post: e.g., email address in paras 0078, 0164, 0113, 0123, 0134 in context with fig. 3B paras 0103-0139) from whom the electronic message was sent {Post: At least Fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 in context with paras 0081, 0164}.
20. Claim 11: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 9. The combination further teaches wherein if on querying the data storage with the first type of entity-signifying metadata a further organisational entity is not identified {Post: At least fig. 3A paras 0095-0101 in context with paras 0164, 0081. Also see fig. 4C paras 0157-0163 especially paras 0161-0162 in context with paras 0164, 0081}, the method further comprises:
analysing the content of the electronic message to identify further entity-signifying content data {Post: At least fig. 4C paras 0157-0163 especially paras 0161-0162 in context with fig. 3B paras 0103-0139}, and
querying the data storage with the further entity-signifying content data to identify the further organisational entity {Post: At least fig. 4C paras 0157-0163 especially paras 0161-0162 in context with fig. 3B paras 0103-0139}.
The Examiner notes regarding claim 11 above: The Examiner respectfully notes that the method claim 11 recite “contingent limitations” {alternative limitations such as “…..,wherein if on querying the data storage with the first type of entity-signifying metadata a further organisational entity is not identified, the method further comprises: analysing the electronic message to identify a second type of entity-signifying metadata in the message; and querying the data storage with the second type of entity-signifying metadata to identify the further organisational entity” (option 1), and “if on querying the data storage with the first type of entity-signifying metadata a further organisational entity is identified”, then these functions (analysing the electronic message to identify a second type of entity-signifying metadata in the message; and querying the data storage with the second type of entity-signifying metadata to identify the further organisational entity) are not required to be happened/given no patentable weight (option 2)}. According to MPEP 2111.04, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B”. Therefore, in the method claim 11, in light of MPEP 2111.04 regarding “contingent limitations”, the Examiner is not required to address both options 1 and option 2 above using prior art. In other word, under broadest reasonable interpretation, only option 1 or option 2 is needed to be addressed using prior art for the method claim 11. Even though, the above in claim 11, the prior art (the combination of Post and Wang) covers all the functions in claim 11, the Office respectfully suggests the Applicant to amend the language in claim 11 to avoid “contingent limitation” in order for all the functions in the claim 11 to be given weight.
21. Claim 13: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the initiated automation sequence implements one of a plurality of predefined business management processes {Post: At least fig. 3B paras 0132-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 0091}.
22. Claim 14: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein processing the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence comprises presenting data relating to the automation sequence to a user via a user interface {Post: At least fig. 3C: paras 0162- 0163 especially para 0163}.
23. Claim 15: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the electronic message is an e-mail message and the messaging client is an e-mail client {Post: At least figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2B, 3A-3B especially paras 0074-0139}.
24. Claim 18: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 17. The combination further teaches a computer program which when run on a suitable computing device implements an automation-sequence initiator engine according to claim 17 {Post: At least figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2B, 3A-3B, 4A-4C paras 0041-0139}.
25. Claim 20: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 5. The combination further teaches adaptively processing the electronic message in accordance with the initiated automation sequence and the process context data {Post: At least fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 especially paras 0120-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 0091}.
26. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post et al; (US 2013/0041958A1), in view of Wang et al; (US 2018/0096295 A1), and further in view of Brunn et al; (US 2019/0034420 A1):
27. Claim 5: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 4. The combination further teaches wherein identifying the process context data from the electronic message comprises at least one of: processing the data content of the electronic message in accordance with a predetermined rule-based schema, and processing the data content of the electronic message {Post: At least fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 0091}.
However, the combination of Post and Wang does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein identifying the process context data from the electronic message comprises at least one of: processing the data content of the electronic message in accordance with a predetermined rule-based schema, and processing the data content of the electronic message using an AI-analysis function”.
Brunn teaches processing data content of the electronic message using an AI-analysis function (e.g., Natural language processing techniques/NLP in Abstract, paras 0003, 0040, 0042-0044, 0056, 0072, 0074) {At least Abstract, paras 0003, fig. 2 paras 0037-0056}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “wherein identifying the process context data from the electronic message comprises at least one of: processing the data content of the electronic message in accordance with a predetermined rule-based schema, and processing the data content of the electronic message” of the combination of Post and Wang especially Post to include “processing data content of the electronic message using an AI-analysis function” of Brunn. One would be motivated to do this since processing data content of the electronic message using an AI-analysis function would offer significant efficiency, accuracy, and service quality improvements, this in turn would enable smart routing to the right team or individual, ensuring high-priority issues are addressed promptly.
28. Claim 12: The combination of Post and Wang teaches the claimed invention as in claim 11. The combination further teaches wherein identifying the further entity-signifying content data from the electronic message comprises at least one of: processing the data content of the electronic message in accordance with a predetermined rule-based schema, and processing the data content of the electronic message {Post: At least fig. 3B paras 0103-0139 in context with fig. 4C especially para 0163. Also see fig. 2B especially paras 0087-0091 especially para 0091}.
However, the combination of Post and Wang does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein identifying the further entity-signifying content data from the electronic message comprises at least one of: processing the data content of the electronic message in accordance with a predetermined rule-based schema, and processing the data content of the electronic message using an AI-analysis function”.
Brunn teaches processing data content of the electronic message using an AI-analysis function (e.g., Natural language processing techniques/NLP in Abstract, paras 0003, 0040, 0042-0044, 0056, 0072, 0074) {At least Abstract, paras 0003, fig. 2 paras 0037-0056}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “wherein identifying the further entity-signifying content data from the electronic message comprises at least one of: processing the data content of the electronic message in accordance with a predetermined rule-based schema, and processing the data content of the electronic message” of the combination of Post and Wang especially Post to include “processing data content of the electronic message using an AI-analysis function” of Brunn. One would be motivated to do this since processing data content of the electronic message using an AI-analysis function would offer significant efficiency, accuracy, and service quality improvements, this in turn would enable smart routing to the right team or individual, ensuring high-priority issues are addressed promptly.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gubbala et al; (US 20170041270 A1), wherein teaches An email sent from a user device can be received at a common email address of an enterprise resource planning server system. The email can be parsed to extract parameters to generate custom reports that are sent back the sender of the received email. The parameters can determine the type of report, the format of the report, and what data to include in the report. Authentication can restrict sending of reports to authorized users of the system.
Pham; (US 2011/0082687 A1), wherein teaches A computer-based system receives and analyzes digital communication between at least one party in a business enterprise and another party using a natural language analyzer to extract meanings from the message. The system includes a database storing specific actions to be taken upon the detection of specified meanings in such communications. Certain actions may require the system to interrogate the enterprise computer system's database to locate the existence or nature of specified data. The directed actions take the form of communications within an enterprise to assist activities related to the analyzed digital communication.
Further see other reference in PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The FAX 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.
Prosecution Insights