DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-20 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of configuring and mapping transactional records and contracting data in a resource planning environment.
Claim 1 discloses: A method for configuring and storing mapping relationships between transactional records and contract data in an enterprise resource planning ("ERP") environment, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), comprising:
receiving, a selection of a primary table; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
receiving, a selection of a relationship type, the relationship type being one of a direct relationship or an indirect relationship; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
in an instance where the relationship type selection is a direct relationship,
displaying, a first field corresponding to a data element in the primary table, and a second field corresponding to a data element in the contract file; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
receiving, input values corresponding to the data element in the primary table and data element in the contract file; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
creating, in the mapping table, a first mapping entry in a mapping table that
associates the value corresponding to the selected field from the primary table
with the value corresponding to the selected field from the contract file; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and in an instance where the relationship type selection is an indirect relationship,
displaying, a second field pairing comprising a third field and a fourth field, the third field corresponding to a contract billing object and the fourth field corresponding to a primary table billing element; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
receiving, user-provided input values for the contract billing object and the primary table billing element; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
creating, in the mapping table, a second mapping entry in a mapping table that
associates the value corresponding to the contract billing object with the value
corresponding to the primary table billing element, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations in the method include wherein the relationship type selection comprises an intercompany relationship type, and wherein creating the second mapping entry comprises: associating a first value corresponding to a delivering company code in the primary table with a second value corresponding to a receiving company code derived from a project or internal customer; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and resolving transactional records representing cross-company postings by identifying entries in the primary table in which the delivering company code and the receiving company code satisfy an intercompany billing condition, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 2), where inputs for the direct relationship type are validated by confirming the contract reference and verifying that the table values conform to a predetermined format, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 3), and where the mapping table includes an entry type indicator and the entries are stored with a corresponding indicator denoting a direct or indirect relationship type, ((following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 4), and resolving transactional records by lookup of the mapping entry to match a transactional field to a contract identifier, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 5), including resolving transactional records using a second mapping entry to map a billing element value to a contract billing object (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 6), and generating a transaction record that includes an identifier of the contract item and mapping method used, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 7).
Each of these claimed limitations involve organizing human activity by following rules or instructions, and employ mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claims 8-20 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-7.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a graphical user interface, a field pairing interface comprising a first field corresponding to a data element in the primary table, and a second field corresponding to a data element in the contract file; runtime processing applying a lookup operation that uses the first mapping entry to match a transactional field value to a contract item identifier, runtime processing applying a dereferencing operation that uses the
second mapping entry to map a billing element value in the transactional record to a contract
billing object, a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions when executed by a hardware-based processor, causes the processor to perform stages for configuring and storing mapping relationships, resolving, during runtime processing, transactional records representing cross-company postings by identifying entries in the primary table in which the delivering company code and the receiving company code satisfy an intercompany billing condition, resolving, during runtime processing, transactional records in the primary table by applying a dereferencing operation that uses the second mapping entry to map a billing element value in the transactional record to a contract billing object, a system for configuring and storing mapping relationships between transactional records and contract data in an enterprise resource planning ("ERP") environment, one processor that executes the instructions to perform stages, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being taught by Kennis, (US 20050209876 A1), “Methods And Systems For Transaction Compliance Monitoring.”
Regarding Claim 1, Kennis teaches A method for configuring and storing mapping relationships between transactional records and contract data in an enterprise resource planning ("ERP") environment, comprising: (An automated transaction integrity monitoring system (100) operative to monitor electronic transactions of an enterprise, [Abstract],
receiving, from a graphical user interface ("GUI"), a selection of a primary table;
receiving, from the GUI, a selection of a relationship type, the relationship type being one of a direct relationship or an indirect relationship; (An extractor (140) obtains data from heterogeneous data sources such as enterprise databases. A staging database (155) caches data from the data sources. A mapper (150) maps enterprise data into an enterprise ontology used to express enterprise policies, [Abstract]
in an instance where the relationship type selection is a direct relationship,
displaying, in the GUI, a field pairing interface comprising a first field
corresponding to a data element in the primary table, and a second field
corresponding to a data element in the contract file; (collaborative reasoning engine (CORE) (160) executes policy statements against the monitoring database and determines exceptions, [Abstract], the mapper 150 operates in accordance with information stored in
an ontology source table 1911 that comprises the enterprise ontology with respect to the particular data source involved in an extraction. The ontology source table 1911 contains information that correlates tables, fieldnames, field parameters, data types, etc. from various enterprise source databases to corresponding tables and fields in records comprising monitoring entities stored in the monitoring database 175. For example the ontology source table identifies particular tables and fields in the ERP database, e.g. tables 1916, 1918, 1920. The mapper effects various transformations and renaming required to store data sourced from theses ERP database tables as entries in the monitoring database, [0261]).
receiving, from the GUI, input values corresponding to the data element in the
primary table and data element in the contract file; (for the continuous monitoring of data corresponding to transactions that are computerized or that have related data recorded or processed on a computer, a system of computers, or a computer network. Data traffic
from multiple and possibly heterogeneous sources is continuously and repeatedly monitored for policy exceptions, [0023], and
creating, in the mapping table, a first mapping entry in a mapping table that
associates the value corresponding to the selected field from the primary table
with the value corresponding to the selected field from the contract file; (correlating data items identified in one manner with data items identified in a different manner, [0125], and A mapper 150 is operative to retrieve data from the staging database 155 and normalize,
transform or map that information into a predetermine format to comprise monitoring entities, which are then stored in a monitoring database 175, [], and A principal function of the mapper 150 is to transform data from various and disparate (and possibly heterogenous) data sources into a shared schema or ontology, so that an analysis engine can examine and correlate data across the disparate systems and facilitate the preparation of policy statements that consider information from different data sources, [0171], and in an instance where the relationship type selection is an indirect relationship,
displaying, in the GUI, a second field pairing comprising a third field and a fourth
field, the third field corresponding to a contract billing object and the fourth field corresponding to a primary table billing element; (The analysis and reporting component 180 of the case management system 190 results provides a display of various user interface screens so as to display information regarding exceptions and entities to users, and to receive control information from users for purposes of assigning personnel as case managers or investigators, changing the status of items, and collecting other information (clues) that may be relevant, [0334].
receiving, from the GUI, user-provided input values for the contract billing object
and the primary table billing element; (the system 100 will require initial configuration with
predetermined information so as to allow their various functions to execute. A system constructed in accordance with the present invention(s) is configured by an administrator or other authorized user, prior to operation. Such configuration involves establishment and expression of the enterprise policies in one or more enterprise policy statements, determination of the manner of extraction of data from monitored databases and providing extraction data, and determination of the mapping or normalization of data in the monitored databases to the enterprise ontology, so that extracted data can be stored in the monitoring database for out-of-band operations and exception detection and management, [0207] and
creating, in the mapping table, a second mapping entry in a mapping table that
associates the value corresponding to the contract billing object with the value
corresponding to the primary table billing element, (The mapping table or enterprise ontology, [ ], stores information and establishes the mapping between predetermined tables, fields and parameters of a source (monitored) database and corresponding tables, fields and parameters in the monitoring database; the mapping, transformation, and renaming of data from the source data format (monitored database) to the target data format (monitoring database) is also referred to as normalizing [0272]. The database 121a of ERP 1 also stores an invoices table 406, which comprises a plurality of data records, each record relating to a single invoice. The invoices table 406 provides a function of tracking invoices from vendors and whether such invoices had been paid. The exemplary invoices table 406 in FIG. 4 consists of a plurality of data records 410c, each record having fields identified as vendor ID, invoice number, amount, status, and other information related to invoices and payments, [0187]). The system collects data across multiple platforms to correlate information from ERP systems, legacy mainframe applications, network monitoring solutions, and external data sources as relevant to many different types of enterprise applications, such as (but not limited to) accounts payable, accounts receivable, general ledger, human resources and payroll, customer relationship management (CRM), inventory management, email, electronic document storage and retention, and contracts management, [0019]).
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and are therefore rejected with the same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 1. In these claims, the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 8) and a system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processor (claim 15) do not change the rationale for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the referenced prior art. Kennis teaches non-transitory computer-readable media [0164], and various computer and processor configurations [0167].
Regarding claim 3, Kennis teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the input values received for the direct relationship type are validated by confirming the existence of the contract reference and verifying that the primary table value conforms to a predetermined format, (the invention provides case management tools such as user interface controls to empower an investigator with regard to directed queries and to provide implementation
control with regard to automated searches, [0026], compliance monitoring to provide for synchronization between enterprise policies and operational activities. Process errors and inefficiencies are detected and tracked through human-managed automated monitoring and problem-pattern recognition, [0027], and audit compliance is ensured with internal controls that results in reduced asset loss, increased operational effectiveness, and increased corporate and shareholder confidence, [0028], a mapper 150 is operative to retrieve data from the staging database 155 and normalize, transform or map that information into a predetermine format to comprise monitoring entities, which are then stored in a monitoring database 175, [0171].
Claims 10 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and are therefore rejected with the same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 3. In these claims, the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 10) and a system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processor (claim 17) do not change the rationale for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the referenced prior art. Kennis teaches non-transitory computer-readable media [0164], and various computer and processor configurations [0167].
Regarding claim 5, Kennis teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising resolving, during runtime processing, transactional records in the primary table by applying a lookup operation that uses the first mapping entry to match a transactional field value to a contract item identifier. (By "computer executable policy statement," it is generally meant that the policy statements are expressed in a computer-readable form, such as an XML frame containing data, commands, and logical expressions that resolve to an outcome such as an exception, etc., [0173], the policy statements comprise computer-executable expressions of relationships between predetermined data items in the monitoring database, expressed in terms of an enterprise ontology, that resolve into indicators that determine exceptions, [0428], combine advanced data acquisition, data analytics, case management, and evidentiary analysis functionality. The disclosed systems and methods collect data across multiple platforms (including IT infrastructure as well as external data sources such as publicly accessible databases), and perform multi-perspective analysis to identify fraud, misuse, and errors.
The system is capable of detecting problem transactions in several ways, including the use of multiple indicators of problems, linkage to related entities, tracking ongoing exceptions to policies that have not been resolved, [0017], that is or may be used to demonstrate
that the current records match the claimed reality, i.e. proof that evidence has not been intentionally or unintentionally modified or corrupted, [0095], Yet another exception is the detection of a duplicated payment relative to a particular invoice or relative to a particular vendor, or perhaps due to the failure of the number of payments made to a particular vendor to match a number of invoices received from a particular vendor. In accordance with aspects of the invention, these exceptions are generated by operation of the CORE, executing frames reflecting and representing the logic required to review the transactional entities and determine exceptions, and create exception entries for storage in the exceptions database, [0293]).
Claims 12 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and are therefore rejected with the same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 5. In these claims, the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 12) and a system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processor (claim 19) do not change the rationale for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the referenced prior art. Kennis teaches non-transitory computer-readable media [0164], and various computer and processor configurations [0167].
Regarding claim 7, Kennis teaches, the method of claim 1, further comprising generating, in response to mapping resolution, an annotated transaction record (the cases management system provides a digitally secure and trusted "evidence locker" that stores transaction records, the reasoning behind evaluations and activities associated with the investigation process, [0022], that includes an identifier of the associated contract item (a record in database parlance, is a single instance or data item, usually consisting of one or more fields of information, each field typically having a field identifier identifying what the information in that field represents, [0138]), and an indicator of the mapping method used, (a mapper 150 is operative to retrieve data from the staging database 155 and normalize, transform or map that information into a predetermine format to comprise monitoring entities, which are then stored in a monitoring database, [0171], an exemplary mapping file 2200 that contains data utilized by the mapper 150 in accordance with aspects of the invention. In preferred embodiments of the invention, the mapping file contains information needed to identify the source tables, entity names, target tables, and other required information. For example, the mapping file 2200 includes entity definitions delimited by entity tags <entity>, with associated information identifying a data source <source></source>, table names <name>, any database join operations that might be required to obtain the required data from multiple tables <join></join>, key fields that might be required <key></key>, field names within tables <field></field>, and a mapping of the corresponding filed name and table, e.g. a field with the name VENDOR_ID obtains its data from the source table and field VAB.ABALPH, as shown in the figure, [0276].
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected with the same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 7. In this claim, the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable medium does not change the rationale for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the referenced prior art. Kennis teaches non-transitory computer-readable media [0164], and various computer and processor configurations [0167].
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Kennis (US
20050209876 A1), “Methods And Systems For Transaction Compliance Monitoring,” in view of Scott, (US 8041613 B2), Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing for Cross Dock.
Regarding Claim 2, Kennis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the relationship type selection comprises an intercompany relationship type, and wherein creating the second mapping entry comprises: (databases storing information relating to electronic transactions of an enterprise, in the exemplary form of business transactions, [ ] and entities involved in transactions is to be monitored for purposes of implementing enterprise policies, expressed in the ontology of the enterprise, [0183]).
Kennis does not teach, but Scott teaches associating a first value corresponding to a delivering company code in the primary table with a second value corresponding to a receiving company code derived from a project or internal customer; and
resolving, during runtime processing, transactional records representing cross-company postings by identifying entries in the primary table in which the delivering company
code and the receiving company code satisfy an intercompany billing condition. (68)-del; 71-2 receiving; (39) transactions; (52) internal xfers (104) internal costs (For cross dock and/or direct ship, the two invoices are created, e.g., the trade invoice (F2) and the inter-company invoice (IV) may be displayed and verified. (VA03). The F2 or master commercial invoice in FIG. 6 may handle external billing to the customer, and invoice (IV) may handle internal costs, such as associated with transferring the material from one company code or plant to another. The script may demonstrate that in a direct ship or cross-dock, a trade and an inter-company invoice are created. It may also show that the inter-company billing is between two internal company codes. Logistic = >Sales/distribution =>Sales =>Order =>Display (VA03), [19: 3-14]).
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Kennis’ transactional record keeping method with the teachings of Scott in the use of internal invoice tracking techniques with the motivation to provide a single system and efficient tracking that may greatly reduce the documentation required for customs processing of a consolidated shipment as recited in Scott [12: 19-21]. The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and those elements, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizing the anticipated results and resulting benefit of the combined transaction management and optimization.
Claims 9 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and are therefore rejected with the same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 2. In these claims, the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 9) and a system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processor (claim 16) does not change the rationale for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art. Kennis teaches non-transitory computer-readable media [0164], and various computer and processor configurations [0167].
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Kennis, (US 20050209876 A1), “Methods And Systems For Transaction Compliance Monitoring,” in view of Marson, (US 20110004622 A1), “Method and Apparatus for Gathering and Organizing Information Pertaining to an Entity.”
Regarding claim 4, Kennis teaches, the method of claim 1,
Kennis does not teach, but Marson teaches, wherein the mapping table includes an entry type indicator, and each of the first mapping entry and second mapping entry is stored with a corresponding indicator denoting a direct or indirect relationship type, (Data Quality Tracking (DQT) provides insight into the integrated data of a system deployment, as well as the operation of the current metadata-driven rules and processes by which the data is integrated. DQT data can be thought of as output "metadata" using the standard definition of the term: data about data. (This is distinct from the configuration metadata that is generated and/or defined by the user as an input into the integration process.) The DQT data describes qualities and attributes of the data as well as the workings and efficacy of the integration process, [0229], association uses metadata-driven rules to find records between different sources that are in fact the same entity. Typically, there will be a prioritized set of match rules for linking between sources, [0266]. What this means is, the system first tries to find any matches between, say, source 1 and 2 by matching on Asset Name, Asset Tag and Serial Number. Any assets with matches on all three attributes will be assigned the same Asset ID in both sources. [0274], Source Matching DQT Tracking has three major facets to it: [0276] 1) Direct rule match [0277] 2) Direct source match [0278] 3) Indirect source match [0279], direct rule matching is, in essence, tracking the results of the association rule matching described above, [0280]. Additionally, beyond the types of information tracked for Direct Rule Matching, the system also tracks another piece of information: [0293] 1) Is Associated--(Y/N flag)--This indicates whether or not there actually was an association between the sources in question.[0294] Direct Source Matching Has Match takes the direct rule matching records as an input, and creates a single Y/N flag based upon whether any individual rule had a match. Is Associated takes the Source Tracking (QSRC) data as an input, where Is Associated is set to "Y" where the entity is found in both sources, otherwise "N".
With Direct Source Matching, the system can answer questions like the following: [0297] 1) Which assets have a direct relationship between sources? [0298] 2) Which assets have no direct relationship between a pair of sources? [0299] 3) Which assets have a direct relationship between a pair of sources, but still were not actually associated between those sources? [0300].
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Kennis’ transactional record keeping method with the teachings of Marson in the use of metadata-driven rules to map records between different sources with the motivation to provide a single system and efficient documentation tracking detailing the records from the various sources that are familiar to the customer, plus their relationships which can be verified through simple visual inspection, [0474]). The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and those elements, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizing the anticipated results and resulting benefit of the combined transaction record organization.
Claims 11 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and are therefore rejected with the same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 4. In these claims, the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 11) and a system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processor (claim 18) do not change the rationale for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art. Kennis teaches non-transitory computer-readable media [0164], and various computer and processor configurations [0167].
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Kennis (US
20050209876 A1), “Methods And Systems For Transaction Compliance Monitoring,” in view of Sidhu (US 20120310690 A1 ), “ERP Transaction Recording to Tables System and Method.”
Regarding claim 6, Kennis teaches the method of claim 1,
further comprising resolving, during runtime processing, (policy statements are expressed in a computer-readable form, such as an XML frame containing data, commands, and logical expressions that resolve to an outcome such as an exception, etc., [0173]),
transactional records in the primary table using a second mapping entry to map a billing element value in the transactional record to a contract billing object, (an automated electronic transaction integrity monitoring system that allows establishment, codification, and maintenance of enterprise policies, monitors electronic transactions of the enterprise from various and possibly heterogeneous data sources, detects exceptions to established policies, reports such exceptions to authorized users such as managers and auditors, and provides a case management system for tracking such exceptions and their underlying transactions, [0015] and the electronic transaction data is obtained from one or more data sources and mapped into a schema corresponding to the ontology and mapping information, [0615]).
Kennis does not teach, but Sidhu teaches, applying a dereferencing operation (identifying an additional UI field for collecting and/or presenting data associated with the business transaction in said transaction UI; dereferencing said additional UI field to identify a directly-associated persistent database table; and identifying, via said transaction tables UI, said directly-associated persistent database table as being directly associated with said additional UI field, [Claim 6].
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Kennis’ transactional record keeping method with the teachings of Sidhu in the use of dereferencing operations with the motivation to provide source mapping to the transaction analysis and identifying a directly-associated persistent database table for accuracy. The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and those elements, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizing the anticipated results and resulting benefit of the dereferencing operations.
Claims 13 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 6 and are therefore rejected with the same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 6. In these claims, the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 13) and a system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processor (claim 20) does not change the rationale for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the referenced prior art. Kennis teaches non-transitory computer-readable media [0164], and various computer and processor configurations [0167].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1822, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights