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 .
REMARKS
On page 8, Applicant argues the claims as filed require "receiving a customer-defined attribute (CDA) definition defining a new data field for storing a new CDA." This operation involves a computing system receiving structured data definitions that specify technical parameters such as data types, field names, and storage requirements. A human mind cannot receive and process such structured technical definitions in the manner required by a computing system. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the limitation of “receiving…” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The insignificant extra-solution activity does not preclude the interpretation of the claimed invention being directed to an abstract idea.
On page 8, Applicant argues the claims further require "associating the new data field with a source data table and a data flow from the source data table to a destination data table." This operation involves programmatically linking data structures within a database schema and establishing automated data flow pathways between tables. Such operations require computer database management systems and cannot be replicated through mental processes or paper-and-pencil methods. The specification explains that "[t]he CDA definition may also indicate which data tables should include the new data field" and that "[t]he CDA definition may also indicate which data flows should include the new data field." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0039]. These technical associations within a database system require computer implementation. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the specification describes the claimed invention as being directed to “automating the implementation of the configuration, thereby minimizing the time and effort required from the customer.” The mere automating a manual process does not preclude the interpretation of the claimed invention being directed to an abstract idea.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues the claims also require "initiating a business process comprising the data flow by generating a new record comprising the source data table, wherein the source data table includes the new data field." Generating database records within a data table structure involves computer operations that create, store, and manage data in accordance with defined schemas. A human
mind cannot generate database records or instantiate data table structures. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the specification describes the claimed invention as being directed to “automating the implementation of the configuration, thereby minimizing the time and effort required from the customer” ([0026]) The mere automating a manual process does not preclude the interpretation of the claimed invention being directed to an abstract idea.
On page 9, Applicant argues the claims as filed also require "calling at least one logic block of the pre-existing logic blocks, wherein calling the at least one logic block includes passing the information corresponding to the new CDA to the at least one logic block." This operation involves programmatic function calls where software modules invoke other software modules and pass data parameters between them. The specification explains that "[u]pon generating the new record, computing system 100 calls at least one logic block 120 of the pre-existing logic blocks 120, wherein calling the at least one logic block 120 includes passing the information corresponding to the new CDA to the at least one logic block 120." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0042]. Such programmatic invocation and parameter passing represents computer-specific functionality that cannot occur in the human mind. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the specification describes the claimed invention as being directed to “automating the implementation of the configuration, thereby minimizing the time and effort required from the customer” ([0026]). The mere automating a manual process does not preclude the interpretation of the claimed invention being directed to an abstract idea.
On page 9, Applicant argues the claims further require that logic blocks identify that information
corresponding to a new CDA was passed and execute data flow operations by passing that information from a source data table to a destination data table. These operations involve automated software execution, data structure recognition, and inter-table data transfer within a database system. The specification explains that logic blocks "identif[y] that the information corresponding to the new CDA was passed to the at least one logic block 120" and "execute[] at least a portion of the data flow by passing the information corresponding to the new CDA from the source data table to the destination data table." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0043]. Such automated recognition and execution by software components cannot be performed mentally. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the mere automating a manual process does not preclude the interpretation of the claimed invention being directed to an abstract idea.
On pages 9-11, Applicant argues the claims recite computer-specific operations by adding "wherein the pre-existing logic blocks include additional mappings logic that enables recognition and processing of the new data field without modification to the pre-existing logic blocks." This limitation makes explicit that pre-existing software logic blocks contain specialized logic-additional mappings logic-that enables dynamic recognition and processing of newly defined data fields without requiring modification to the logic blocks themselves. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the specification describes the claimed invention as being directed to “automating the implementation of the configuration, thereby minimizing the time and effort required from the customer” ([0026]). The mere automating a manual process does not preclude the interpretation of the claimed invention being directed to an abstract idea.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application. The amended claims recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem in ERP systems. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the specification describes the claimed invention as being directed to “automating the implementation of the configuration, thereby minimizing the time and effort required from the customer” ([0026]). The mere automating a manual process is sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues the additional elements amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The amended claims now explicitly recite "wherein the pre-existing logic blocks include additional mappings logic that enables recognition and processing of the new data field without modification to the pre-existing logic blocks" as recited by claims 1, 8, and 15. This is not a generic computer component performing well-understood, routine, or conventional activities. Rather, it represents a specific technical implementation that provides unconventional functionality. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the specification describes the claimed invention as being directed to “automating the implementation of the configuration, thereby minimizing the time and effort required from the customer” ([0026]). The mere automating a manual process is sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Or the minimizing the time for an manual process is not sufficient to overcome the abstract idea interpretation. LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
It is noted the claim amendment necessitated a new prior art search which resulted in the application of van Wyk et al. (US 2007/0136367 Al) as necessitated by claim amendments.
PENDING MATTERS
Claims 1-20, filed October 15, 2025, are examined on the merits.
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., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims recite a method, a system, and one or more computer-readable storage media, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites “associating the new data field”, “initiating a business process”, and “identifies that the information” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of paper and pencil. The limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claims 8 and 15 are directed to a system and one or more computer-readable storage media comprising steps in claim 1. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of a “a computing system”, “one or more computer-readable storage media”, and “a processing system” where the claim further recite generic elements of the method, system, or computer-readable storage media. The “a computing system”, “one or more computer-readable storage media”, and “a processing system” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of “receiving…” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The limitation of “calling at least one logic block” and “executes at least a portion of the data flow…” represent extra-solution activity because they are mere nominal or tangential additions to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g), which provide examples that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, such as “[p]rinting or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55” and “[s]electing information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
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.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “a computing system”, “one or more computer-readable storage media”, and “a processing system” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of “receiving a query” amounts to no more than insignificant pre-activity of receiving data. Further, the “receiving” step simply appends well-understood and conventional activity of receiving data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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)”. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The limitation of “calling at least one logic block” and “executes at least a portion of the data flow…” represent extra-solution activity because they are mere nominal or tangential additions to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g), which provide examples that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, such as “[p]rinting or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55” and “[s]electing information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
Thus taken alone, the individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 2 recites the destination data table includes the new data field for storing the information corresponding to the new CDA. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein the CDA definition comprises at least a name and a data type of the new CDA. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein associating the new data field with the source data table causes new records comprising the source data table to include the new data field when the new records are created. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the CDA definition was created in a no-code development environment in which new CDAs can be defined and associated with data flows. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein initiating the business process occurs in response to an incoming transaction that triggers the business process. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein the CDA definition indicates that the new CDA should appear in records comprising the destination data table. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 are directed to a system and one or more computer-readable storage media comprising steps in claims 2-7. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2-7, supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van Wyk et al. (US 2007/0136367 Al).
Claim 1, van Wyk discloses a method of operating a computing system, the method comprising:
receiving a customer-defined attribute (CDA) definition defining a new data field for storing a new CDA ([0008], e.g. object broker (runtime engine) interprets the new object definition and brokers data/information and method calls to the data sources (or existing systems). Additional fields can be added to the new object definition. These additional fields are associated with the unique identifiers from the other data sources included in the new object definition);
associating the new data field with a source data table and a data flow from the source data table to a destination data table, wherein the data flow utilizes pre-existing logic blocks and the pre-existing logic blocks include additional mappings logic ([0074], e.g. A workflow design tool 800 that allows a user to define a resource map 802) that enables recognition and processing of the new data field without modification to the pre-existing logic blocks ([0008], e.g. These additional fields are associated with the unique identifiers from the other data sources included in the new object definition. The actual data is preferably stored in a new data store where all data structure and action (e.g., create, load, update, delete as examples) are managed by the runtime broker);
initiating a business process comprising the data flow by generating a new record ([0003], e.g. create new business objects from existing or new data sources without the need for complex solution development) comprising the source data table, wherein the source data table includes the new data field, and wherein the new data field stores information corresponding to the new CDA (Figure 5); and
upon generating the new record, calling at least one logic block of the pre-existing logic blocks, wherein calling the at least one logic block includes passing the information corresponding to the new CDA to the at least one logic block, wherein the at least one logic block (Figure 5):
identifies that the information corresponding to the new CDA was passed to the at least one logic block (([0051], e.g. data to populate the customer contact form 310); and
executes at least a portion of the data flow by passing the information corresponding to the new CDA from the source data table to the destination data table ([0051], e.g. data to populate the customer contact form 310 and the order list form 312 is brought into the customer business object 306 and the order business object 308 from the data sources 108 by the object broker process 304. Similarly, new and modified data from the customer contact form 310 and the order list form 312 is sent from the customer business object 306 and the order business object 308 to the data sources 108 by the object broker process 304).
Claim 2, van Wyk discloses the destination data table includes the new data field for storing the information corresponding to the new CDA ([0008], e.g. These additional fields are associated with the unique identifiers from the other data sources included in the new object definition. The actual data is preferably stored in a new data store where all data structure and action (e.g., create, load, update, delete as examples) are managed by the runtime broker).
Claim 3, van Wyk discloses the CDA definition comprises at least a name and a data type of the new CDA (Figure 5, e.g. Customer Business Object 306).
Claim 4, van Wyk discloses associating the new data field with the source data table causes new records comprising the source data table to include the new data field when the new records are created (Figure 4, e.g. Order Business Object 308).
Claim 5, van Wyk discloses the CDA definition was created in a no-code development environment in which new CDAs can be defined and associated with data flows ([0011], e.g. The forms are not hard coded and can be changed on the fly).
Claim 6, van Wyk discloses initiating the business process occurs in response to an incoming transaction that triggers the business process ([0061], e.g. Using an onBlur event trigger, the client device 102 may run JavaScript code that sends an XML file 604 representing "LoadContact(1234567)" over the Internet 116 via an HTTP request to an ASP script running on the object broker server 114).
Claim 7, van Wyk discloses the CDA definition indicates that the new CDA should appear in records comprising the destination data table (Figure 4).
Claims 8-20, van Wyk discloses a system and computer-readable storage media (Figure 1) comprising the steps cited above.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO's PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199. The USPTO's official fax number is 571-272-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Dune Ly, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0716. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil, can be reached on 571-270-0474.
/Cheyne D Ly/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
1/21/2026