Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/064,765

EVENT-DRIVEN ERP INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR REAL-TIME DATA SYNCHRONIZATION

Non-Final OA §101§102§112
Filed
Feb 27, 2025
Examiner
SHANMUGASUNDARAM, KANNAN
Art Unit
2168
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
416 granted / 579 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+37.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
603
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 579 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-6 are pending in the Instant Application. Claims 1-6 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection). 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 . Priority The Instant Application does not claim priority to any earlier filed applications, and thus has an effective filing date of 27 February 2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the abbreviations ERP and AMQP without first using the full form in the claims, thus making it unclear as to what the abbreviation stands for. In order to avoid being indefinite, please use the unabbreviated form the first time an abbreviation is used in the claims. Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 contains the trademark APACHE ® and SAP ®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark is used to describe an event bus and, accordingly, the description is indefinite. Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1. Specification The use of the term APACHE ® and SAP ®, which are trademarks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims can be interpreted as non-statutory software per se. Claim 1 recites “A system for real-time integration…,” but does not include may hardware. Without any express hardware, a computer implemented system can be implemented as non-statutory software per se. Applicant is encouraged to add a processor and/or memory to the claim for the claim to become statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by TRAINOR (“Trainor”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0271726. As per claim 1, Trainor discloses a system for real-time integration between ERP systems and third-party applications, the system comprising: a) an event bus utilizing message brokers such as Apache Kafka, AMQP, or SAP Event Mesh ([0056] wherein a Apache® Kafka ecosystem is described that receives events from event producers (See Fig. 4)); b) a real-time data synchronization module that streams events as they occur ([0059] wherein a streaming service is described that ingests data structures event streams (See Fig. 4)); c) an asynchronous processing architecture that decouples ERP processes from third-party applications ([0080] wherein stream processing architecture decouples ERP processes asynchronously by performing pattern recognition resulting in push messages); d) an intelligent event handling module with filtering, transformation, routing, and AI-driven anomaly detection, ([0066] wherein steam analytics filter and transform the data from the stream, [0021] wherein traffic can be routed to different instances after pattern recognition from the steam and [0053] wherein an AI-driven anomaly detection in stream data can trigger a push message). As per claim 2, Trainor discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the event bus ensures low-latency, high-throughput communication between ERP systems and external applications ([0056] wherein Kafka ecosystem ensures low latency and high throughput for ERP systems processing streams). As per claim 3, Trainor discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the real-time data synchronization module eliminates batch dependencies, enabling instant synchronization of orders, inventory, and payments ([0058] wherein real-time transactions are described eliminating batch processing using a streaming service as described in [0059] and [0065] wherein orders are processed and [0102] where inventory and payment gateways are described). As per claim 4, Trainor discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the asynchronous processing architecture supports high-volume transaction processing with dynamically scalable event consumers ([0056] wherein high throughput, scalable message providing is described). As per claim 5, Trainor discloses the system as claimed in claim 1,, wherein the intelligent event handling module applies predefined rules for event filtering, transformation, and routing [0080] wherein certain events are filtered based on pattern recognition, [0087] wherein transformation is described, and [0021] wherein rules can be used to route to appropriate channels). As per claim 6, Trainor discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the intelligent event handling module employs AI- driven anomaly detection to identify and resolve data discrepancies in real time ([0053] wherein AI pattern recognition is described that identifies data discrepancies in real-time in stream data (see [0055])). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596756
PERSONALIZED RELATED QUERIES FOR SEARCH SEGMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596729
Value-Directed Parsing for Data Extraction
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585703
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING GRAPH DATA, DEVICE, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND PROGRAM PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579180
EVALUATION SUPPORT PROGRAM, EVALUATION SUPPORT METHOD, AND EVALUATION SUPPORT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572520
MACHINE-LEARNING-AUTOMATED RECOGNITION AND LABELLING OF COLUMNAR DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+37.0%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 579 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month