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 .
Status of Application
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendments, Arguments, and Remarks filed on the 2nd day of January, 2026. Currently claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are pending. Claims 6, 12, and 17 have been previously cancelled. No claims are allowed.
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 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Under MPEP 2106, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
In the instant case, claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are directed to a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable media. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (step 1). However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea (step 2). While claims 1, 8, and 16, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. Examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity specifically commercial interactions and behaviors and managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 recite a method, system, and non-transitory computer for monitoring, by a processing device, activity of a cluster of merchant systems comprising a first merchant system, wherein the activity relates to an updating of a plurality of data fields of business listings of the cluster of merchant systems; determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems, a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields; generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating the data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system wherein the rule is established based on one or more selections provided by the first merchant system and at least one of the analytics based on the activity of the first merchant and one or more search query activities associated with the first merchant system, and wherein the one or more selections indicate a first frequency to update a first data field and a second frequency different from the first frequency to update a second data field of the plurality of data fields associated with the first merchant system, wherein the data field is identified based on an updating frequency of the data field associated with other merchant systems in the cluster of merchant systems; monitoring, by the processing device, the first merchant system to determine an occurrence of an event corresponding to the rule and the data field, wherein the event comprises passage of the time period during which no update to the data field has been made by the first merchant system; in response to a request from a first user to update the rule, updating the rule when the request is approved by a second user, wherein the first user is a non-admin user of the first merchant system and the second user is an admin user of the first merchant system; in response to the occurrence of the event, transmitting, by the processing device, a notification to the first merchant system, wherein the notification comprises a prompt to update a value stored in the data field of the business listing of the first merchant system; receiving, by the processing device, a response from the first merchant system comprising an updated value corresponding to the data field of the business listing of the first merchant system; causing, by the processing device, the updated value corresponding to the data field to be stored in an updated record associated with the business listing; transmitting, by the processing device, at least a portion of the updated record to a plurality of business listing provider systems; and displaying the business listing associated with the merchant system in response to a search query which is directed to concepts that are performed mentally and a product of human mental work. The limitations suggest a process similar to that of Electric Power Group, in that claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information related to a business listing, analyzing the information and displaying the result of the analysis, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Alternatively, Examiner notes that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 recite a a method, system, and non-transitory computer for monitoring, by a processing device, activity of a cluster of merchant systems comprising a first merchant system, wherein the activity relates to an updating of a plurality of data fields of business listings of the cluster of merchant systems; determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems, a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields associated with the first merchant system, wherein the data field is identified based on an updating frequency of the data field associated with other merchant systems in the cluster of merchant systems; generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating the data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system wherein the rule is established based on one or more selections provided by the first merchant system and at least one of the analytics based on the activity of the first merchant and one or more search query activities associated with the first merchant system, and wherein the one or more selections indicate a first frequency to update a first data field and a second frequency different from the first frequency to update a second data field of the plurality of data fields; monitoring, by the processing device, the first merchant system to determine an occurrence of an event corresponding to the rule and the data field, wherein the event comprises passage of the time period during which no update to the data field has been made by the first merchant system; in response to a request from a first user to update the rule, updating the rule when the request is approved by a second user, wherein the first user is a non-admin user of the first merchant system and the second user is an admin user of the first merchant system; in response to the occurrence of the event, transmitting, by the processing device, a notification to the first merchant system, wherein the notification comprises a prompt to update a value stored in the data field of the business listing of the first merchant system; receiving, by the processing device, a response from the first merchant system comprising an updated value corresponding to the data field of the business listing of the first merchant system; causing, by the processing device, the updated value corresponding to the data field to be stored in an updated record associated with the business listing; transmitting, by the processing device, at least a portion of the updated record to a plurality of business listing provider systems; and displaying the business listing associated with the merchant system in response to a search query, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) in grouping “II” in that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity such as advertising and maintaining and monitoring business interactions such as transactions at specific business listing entities and generating and updating information related to the business listing based on the processed transactions. An example of a claim reciting advertising is found in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Ultramercial claimed an eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad. 772 F.3d. at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754. The Federal Circuit determined that the "combination of steps recites an abstraction—an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form" and thus was directed to an abstract idea, which the court described as "using advertising as an exchange or currency." Id. This is merely further embellishments of the abstract idea and does not further limit the claimed invention to render the claims patentable subject matter. The limitations above closely follow the steps standard in interactions between people and businesses such as monitoring transactions at business listings, and the steps of the claims involve organizing human activity, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “organizing human activity” grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The conclusion that the claim recites an abstract idea within the groupings of the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) remains grounded in the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the description of the invention in the specification. For example, [App. Spec ¶ 14], “management system and method to establish one or more rules (also referred to as "notification rules") governing the dissemination of a notification to a merchant system relating to the updating one or more data fields associated with a business listing of the merchant”. Accordingly, the Examiner submits claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20, recite an abstract idea based on the language identified in claims 1, 8, and 16, and the abstract ideas previously identified based on that language that remains consistent with the groupings of Step 2A Prong 1 of the MPEP 2106.04(a)(1).
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to a method instructing the reader to implement the identified mental processes, and method of organizing human activity of business interactions (i.e., managing business advertising listings, and processing and displaying information related to business listings) on generically claimed computer structure. For instance, the additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea itself include the elements such as “processing device” recited at a high level of generality. These elements do not themselves amount to an improvement to the interface or computer, to a technology or another technical field. This is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure which states that the computing device as “Processing device 802 represents one or more general-purpose processing devices such as a microprocessor, central processing unit, or the like. More particularly, the processing device may be complex instruction set computing (CISC) microprocessor, reduced instruction set computer (RISC) microprocessor, very long instruction word (VLIW) microprocessor, or processor implementing other instruction sets, or processors implementing a combination of instruction sets. Processing device 802 may also be one or more special-purpose processing devices such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), network processor, or the like. Processing device 802 is configured to execute logic or instructions associated with the notification management component 115 for performing the operations and steps discussed herein. For example, the processing device 802 may be configured to execute instructions implementing method 200, method 300 and 400, for managing notifications to a merchant system relating to one or more data fields of a business listing, in accordance with one or more aspects of the disclosure.”. (App. Spec. ¶ 61).
Accordingly, the claimed “system” read in light of the specification employs any wide range of possible devices comprising a number of components that are “well-known” and included in an indiscriminate “computer”, “processing device”, and “system”, (e.g., processing device). Thus, the claimed structure amounts to appending generic computer elements to abstract idea comprising the body of the claim. The computing elements are only involved at a general, high level, and do not have the particular role within any of the functions but to be an computer-implemented method using a generically claimed “processing device” and even basic, generic recitations that imply use of the computer such as storing information via servers would add little if anything to the abstract idea.
Similarly, reciting the abstract idea as software functions used to program a generic computer is not significant or meaningful: generic computers are programmed with software to perform various functions every day. A programmed generic computer is not a particular machine and by itself does not amount to an inventive concept because, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as discussed in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, it is not relevant that a human may perform a task differently from a computer. It is necessarily true that a human might apply an abstract idea in a different manner from a computer. What matters is the application, “stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” will not render an abstract idea non-abstract. Tranxition v. Lenovo, Nos. 2015-1907, -1941, -1958 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2016), slip op. at 7-8.
Here, the instructions entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the role of the generic computing elements recited in claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20, is the same as the role of the computer in the claims considered by the Supreme Court in Alice, and the claim as whole amounts merely to an instruction to apply the abstract idea on the generic computerised system. Therefore, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (2106.04(d)). Under the MPEP 2106.05, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims 1, 8, and 16, does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, and 18-20 are directed to further embellishments of the abstract idea the central theme of the abstract idea identified above, as well as being directed to data processing and transmission which the courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities (see at least M.P.E.P. 2106.05(g)). Data transmission is one of the most basic and fundamental uses there are for a generic computing device is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. The examiner takes the position that simply appending the judicial exception with such a well understood step of data transmission is not going to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120046998 A1 to Staib et al. (hereinafter Staib) in view of WIPO International Application Publication No. WO 2015103269 A1 to Vierra in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120303425 A1 to Shivaswamy et al. (hereinafter Shivaswamy).
Referring to Claims 1, 8, and 16 (substantially similar in scope and language), Staib discloses a method, system and non-transitory computer readable storage medium (see at least Staib: ¶ 38-39) comprising:
monitoring, by a processing device, activity of a cluster of merchant systems comprising a first merchant system, wherein the activity relates to an updating of a plurality of data fields of business listings of the cluster of merchant systems;
Specifically, Staib discloses storing a rule associated with a data field of a business listing associated with a merchant system where the system includes a plurality of merchants and tracking activity of a business listing (see at least Staib: ¶ 15, 35, 39, 42-43, 46, 49-52, 56-66, and 81-83). Staib further discloses monitoring and recording data related to various merchants and activities associate with those merchants (see at least Staib: ¶ 48). Furthermore, the storage of information is further addressed by Staib (see at least Staib: ¶ 39, 42, 72, 76, 80, and 83-84).
Staib further discloses the system having the Price Updater module which is triggered by the price analyzer which “can periodically or on command be sent to analyze the price and market data obtained by the SSB and TS modules 170, 172 and then compute adjusted prices according to strategies and algorithms selected by the merchant” (see at least Staib: ¶ 49) and the price updater module “can be triggered by the PA module 174 or on a merchant command to push updated price data out to the appropriate sales channels” (see at least ¶ 58).
Staib does not explicitly state wherein the activity relates to an updating of a plurality of data fields of business listings of the cluster of merchant systems (further addressed below).
determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems, a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields associated with the first merchant system, wherein the data field is identified based on an updating frequency of the data field associated with other merchant systems in the cluster of merchant systems, wherein the rule is established based on one or more selections provided by the first merchant system and at least one of the analytics based on the activity of the first merchant and one or more search query activities associated with the first merchant system, and wherein the one or more selections indicate a first frequency to update a first data field and a second frequency different from the first frequency to update a second data field of the plurality of data fields
Examiner notes that Staib discloses the system applying pricing rules that are input by the user (see at least Staib: ¶ 59, 62. and 66), wherein sales status information such as trends, inventory levels, other measures of past success or difficulty with sales, and pricing results for other merchants or channels after detecting a pricing change should be explored (see at least Staib: ¶ 51).
Staib further discloses the system automatically updating multiple sales channels (see at least Staib: ¶ 36) wherein the update can be triggered automatically by the PA module or on a merchant command (see at least Staib: ¶ 58), wherein the merchant command and “the pricing rules are set up with easily varied parameters so that as data is collected the parameters can be updated (see at least Staib: ¶ 81).
Staib further discloses that the user can place restrictions on “how frequently” prices may be changed which amounts to inputting the frequency of updating a price for all stored items within the system (see at least Staib: ¶ 61 “there may be restrictions placed on how frequently prices may be changed”; see also Staib: ¶ 36 “system uses the new, channel-specific prices to update multiple sales channels used by the merchant for conducting business in conjunction with special sales channel recognition data that allows the merchant to pursue sales' goals”; see also Staib: ¶ 58 “the Price Updater (PU) module 176 can be triggered by the PA module 174 or on a merchant command to push updated price data out to the appropriate sales channels”; see also Staib: ¶ ).
Staib further discloses that the whole system operates on predefined price setting rules that analyzes sales status data in the database for the products and channels using predefined parameters (see at least Staib: ¶ 62), wherein the system is then directed to take one of the several paths “based on the price setting goal that is predefined in the price setting rules for Product XYZ for particular sales trends, seasonality, inventory levels and storage costs or selected by the user, if the goal is selectable at the time of analysis” (see at least Staib: ¶ 62).
Staib further discloses that the price setting rules are selected and defined by the merchant through goals, parameters, and constraints (see at least Staib: ¶ 49 “The merchant's objectives and constraints are embodied in a set of price setting rules, which may have a number of selling parameters that are adjustable across all products or are specific to only one product”; see also Staib: ¶ 57 “the price setting rules can be configured to incorporate complex calculations or cost constraints that vary by channel and by recent sale data from the channel”; see also Staib: ¶ 59 “FIG. 5 shows the general flow of analysis for an example of a set of price setting rules, which assumes that there is data in the database 142 for the products and channels to be analyzed, including the various parameters necessary to define the price setting rules”; see also Staib: ¶ 59-62, 66, and 81).
Staib further discloses that the price of the products can be adjusted at any defined frequency such as daily, yearly, weekly, or any other uniquely defined parameters (see Staib: ¶ 35 “system may optimize profit margin by considering sales channel characteristics and selling parameters controllable by a merchant other than price and costs, such as making an offer based on time of day, time of year and day of week that are unique to a channel, such as those that may be found on an auction site (for example, raise a price on Sundays)”; see also Staib: ¶ 48 “The demand curve constructed is used to find an optimized or more favorable price point for the particular product. In addition to testing the market for price, the TS module 172 can test the market for other selling parameters that may be unique to a particular channel, such as what are the optimal times of day or days of week for ending an auction or how long should an auction last. The TS module 172 monitors and records the selling parameters of all sales of these tests in the database for further analysis, in particular the development of price and demand curves.”; see also Staib: ¶ 56 “TS 172 may be statistically significant to model price/sales behavior for a given product by channel, time of day, day of week, season, web site entry page, customer location, quantity discount schedule or other variables”; see also Staib: ¶ 62, 66, 69, 73, 81, 89-91, and 93).
generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating the data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system;
Specifically, Staib discloses monitoring, by processing device, the merchant system to determine an occurrence of an event corresponding to the rule (see at least Staib: ¶ 46-52).
Specifically, Staib discloses receiving a response from the merchant system comprising an updated value corresponding to the data field of the business listing (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81).
Staib discloses storing the updated value corresponding to the data field in an updated record associated with the business listing and transmitting at least a portion of the updated record to a business listing provider system (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81). Furthermore, the storage of information is further addressed by Staib (see at least Staib: ¶ 39, 42, 72, 76, 80, and 83-84).
Staib further discloses the system having the Price Updater module which is triggered by the price analyzer which “can periodically or on command be sent to analyze the price and market data obtained by the SSB and TS modules 170, 172 and then compute adjusted prices according to strategies and algorithms selected by the merchant” (see at least Staib: ¶ 49) and the price updater module “can be triggered by the PA module 174 or on a merchant command to push updated price data out to the appropriate sales channels” (see at least ¶ 58).
Examiner notes that Staib discloses the system applying pricing rules that are input by the user (see at least Staib: ¶ 59, 62. and 66), wherein sales status information such as trends, inventory levels, other measures of past success or difficulty with sales, and pricing results for other merchants or channels after detecting a pricing change should be explored (see at least Staib: ¶ 51).
Staib further discloses the system automatically updating multiple sales channels (see at least Staib: ¶ 36) wherein the update can be triggered automatically by the PA module or on a merchant command (see at least Staib: ¶ 58), wherein the merchant command and “the pricing rules are set up with easily varied parameters so that as data is collected the parameters can be updated (see at least Staib: ¶ 81).
Staib further discloses that the user can place restrictions on “how frequently” prices may be changed which amounts to inputting the frequency of updating a price for all stored items within the system (see at least Staib: ¶ 61 “there may be restrictions placed on how frequently prices may be changed”; see also Staib: ¶ 36 “system uses the new, channel-specific prices to update multiple sales channels used by the merchant for conducting business in conjunction with special sales channel recognition data that allows the merchant to pursue sales' goals”; see also Staib: ¶ 58 “the Price Updater (PU) module 176 can be triggered by the PA module 174 or on a merchant command to push updated price data out to the appropriate sales channels”; see also Staib: ¶ ).
Staib further discloses that the whole system operates on predefined price setting rules that analyzes sales status data in the database for the products and channels using predefined parameters (see at least Staib: ¶ 62), wherein the system is then directed to take one of the several paths “based on the price setting goal that is predefined in the price setting rules for Product XYZ for particular sales trends, seasonality, inventory levels and storage costs or selected by the user, if the goal is selectable at the time of analysis” (see at least Staib: ¶ 62).
Staib further discloses that the price setting rules are selected and defined by the merchant through goals, parameters, and constraints (see at least Staib: ¶ 49 “The merchant's objectives and constraints are embodied in a set of price setting rules, which may have a number of selling parameters that are adjustable across all products or are specific to only one product”; see also Staib: ¶ 57 “the price setting rules can be configured to incorporate complex calculations or cost constraints that vary by channel and by recent sale data from the channel”; see also Staib: ¶ 59 “FIG. 5 shows the general flow of analysis for an example of a set of price setting rules, which assumes that there is data in the database 142 for the products and channels to be analyzed, including the various parameters necessary to define the price setting rules”; see also Staib: ¶ 59-62, 66, and 81).
Staib further discloses that the price of the products can be adjusted at any defined frequency such as daily, yearly, weekly, or any other uniquely defined parameters (see Staib: ¶ 35 “system may optimize profit margin by considering sales channel characteristics and selling parameters controllable by a merchant other than price and costs, such as making an offer based on time of day, time of year and day of week that are unique to a channel, such as those that may be found on an auction site (for example, raise a price on Sundays)”; see also Staib: ¶ 48 “The demand curve constructed is used to find an optimized or more favorable price point for the particular product. In addition to testing the market for price, the TS module 172 can test the market for other selling parameters that may be unique to a particular channel, such as what are the optimal times of day or days of week for ending an auction or how long should an auction last. The TS module 172 monitors and records the selling parameters of all sales of these tests in the database for further analysis, in particular the development of price and demand curves.”; see also Staib: ¶ 56 “TS 172 may be statistically significant to model price/sales behavior for a given product by channel, time of day, day of week, season, web site entry page, customer location, quantity discount schedule or other variables”; see also Staib: ¶ 62, 66, 69, 73, 81, 89-91, and 93).
Staib discloses determining statistics (analytics) related to various activities of merchants but fails to explicitly state determines a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields associated with the first merchant system, wherein the data field is identified based on an updating frequency of the data field associated with other merchant systems in the cluster of merchant systems, and generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating the data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system (further addressed below).
monitoring, by the processing device, the first merchant system to determine an occurrence of an event corresponding to the rule and the data field, wherein the event comprises passage of the time period during which no update to the data field has been made by the first merchant system
Examiner notes that this limitation is further addressed below.
in response to a request from a first user to update the rule, updating the rule when the request is approved by a second user, wherein the first user is a non-admin user of the first merchant system and the second user is an admin user of the first merchant system
Specifically, Staib discloses in response to the occurrence of the event, transmit a notification to the merchant system, wherein the notification includes a prompt to update a value stored in the data field of the business listing is submitted via a request from a merchant specifically (non-admin) or automatically adjusted based on the administrative capabilities of the system (admin request to update) (see at least Staib: ¶ 48, 51 and 58 “As seen in FIG. 1, the Price Updater (PU) module 176 can be triggered by the PA module 174 or on a merchant command to push updated price data out to the appropriate sales channels. This module is fairly standard to those familiar with the art, but is indispensable in implementing the price analysis results and achieving the merchant's goals. This can be implemented via database updates followed by generation of XML or CSV files which are then copied via FTP protocol to remote machines. Pursuing the merchants' goals on their self-managed ecommerce stores 180 is directly accomplished by the PA module 174 in updating the catalog database, or a merchant can choose to manually intervene through the PU and PA module controls”; see also Staib: ¶ 38 “Referring now to FIG. 1, the types of hardware and software within the computer system 100 may vary depending upon the implementation. For example, certain embodiments may have components, such as the display 110, keyboard 112, and/or printer 114, depending upon the specific capabilities of the system. In addition, the computer system 100 may support additional conventional functionality not described in detail herein, such as displaying images in a variety of formats, protecting the system from cyber-threats, allowing users to securely log into the system, and supporting administrative capabilities”).
Specifically, Staib discloses receiving a response from the merchant system comprising an updated value corresponding to the data field of the business listing (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81).
Staib discloses storing the updated value corresponding to the data field in an updated record associated with the business listing and transmitting at least a portion of the updated record to a business listing provider system (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81). Furthermore, the storage of information is further addressed by Staib (see at least Staib: ¶ 39, 42, 72, 76, 80, and 83-84).
Examiner notes that receiving a request from a first user that is not an admin user is further addressed below.
in response to the occurrence of the event, transmitting, by the processing device, a notification to the first merchant system, wherein the notification comprises a prompt to update a value stored in the data field of the business listing first merchant system;
Specifically, Staib discloses in response to the occurrence of the event, transmit a notification to the merchant system, wherein the notification includes a prompt to update a value stored in the data field of the business listing (see at least Staib: ¶ 48, 51 and 58).
Specifically, Staib discloses receiving a response from the merchant system comprising an updated value corresponding to the data field of the business listing (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81).
Staib discloses storing the updated value corresponding to the data field in an updated record associated with the business listing and transmitting at least a portion of the updated record to a business listing provider system (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81). Furthermore, the storage of information is further addressed by Staib (see at least Staib: ¶ 39, 42, 72, 76, 80, and 83-84).
receiving, by the processing device, a response from the merchant system comprising an updated value corresponding to the data field of the business listing of the first merchant system;
Specifically, Staib discloses receiving a response from the merchant system comprising an updated value corresponding to the data field of the business listing (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81).
Staib discloses storing the updated value corresponding to the data field in an updated record associated with the business listing and transmitting at least a portion of the updated record to a business listing provider system (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81). Furthermore, the storage of information is further addressed by Staib (see at least Staib: ¶ 39, 42, 72, 76, 80, and 83-84).
causing, by the processing device, the updated value corresponding to the data field to be stored in an updated record associated with the business listing; and
transmitting, by the processing device, at least a portion of the updated record to a business listing provider system and displaying the business listing associated with the merchant system in response to a search query
Specifically, Staib discloses storing the updated value corresponding to the data field in an updated record associated with the business listing and transmitting at least a portion of the updated record to a business listing provider system displaying the business listing associated with the merchant system in response to a search query (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, 68, and 81). Furthermore, the storage of information is further addressed by Staib (see at least Staib: ¶ 39, 42, 72, 76, 80, and 83-84).
Staib does not explicitly state:
monitoring, by a processing device, activity of a cluster of merchant systems comprising a first merchant system, wherein the activity relates to an updating of a plurality of data fields of business listings of the cluster of merchant systems
determining a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields associated with the first merchant system, wherein the data field is identified based on an updating frequency of the data field associated with other merchant systems in the cluster of merchant systems
generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating the data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system
monitoring, by the processing device, the first merchant system to determine an occurrence of an event corresponding to the rule and the data field, wherein the event comprises passage of the time period during which no update to the data field has been made by the first merchant system
receiving a request from a non-admin user
However, Vierra, which talks about a product re-pricing system, teaches it is known to monitor the activities of a plurality of merchants within the system wherein the activity related to the updating of data fields associated to a business listing of a particular merchant (see at least Vierra: ¶ 14-19, 36, 40-48, and 51-59).
Vierra further discloses a method and system for monitoring, by the processing device, the first merchant system to determine an occurrence of an event corresponding to the rule and the data field, wherein the event comprises passage of the time period during which no update to the data field has been made by the first merchant system (see at least Vierra: ¶ 14-19, 36, 40-48, and 51-59; see also ¶ 41 discussing the predetermined schedule or updating).
Vierra further teaches the system receiving a plurality of requests and demands for updating and adjusting price rules such as a request from a non-admin user (see at least Vierra: ¶ 18 “Examiner notes that receiving a request from a first user that is not an admin user is further addressed below.”; see also Vierra: ¶ 47-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the feature of monitoring activity of a plurality of merchants and their respective listings, presenting updates and changes that is recommended based on the updates and changes made by competitors, and changing that merchants listing after notification and confirmation (as disclosed by Vierra) into the method and system for monitoring business listings via a computerized system where the system generates and transmits information related to business listings to merchants (as disclosed by Staib). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the feature of monitoring activity of a plurality of merchants and their respective listings, presenting updates and changes that is recommended based on the updates and changes made by competitors, and changing that merchants listing after notification and confirmation because it would create an advantage of having the lower price for a particular product prior to one or more competitors lowering their prices for the particular product (see Vierra: ¶ 18).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the feature of monitoring activity of a plurality of merchants and their respective listings, presenting updates and changes that is recommended based on the updates and changes made by competitors, and changing that merchants listing after notification and confirmation (as disclosed by Vierra) into the method and system for monitoring business listings via a computerized system where the system generates and transmits information related to business listings to merchants (as disclosed by Staib), because the claimed invention is merely a simple arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by adding the well-known feature of monitoring activity of a plurality of merchants and their respective listings, presenting updates and changes that is recommended based on the updates and changes made by competitors, and changing that merchants listing after notification and confirmation into the method and system for monitoring business listings via a computerized system where the system generates and transmits information related to business listings to merchants). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
The combination of Staib and Vierra fails to state:
determining a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields associated with the first merchant system, wherein the data field is identified based on an updating frequency of the data field associated with other merchant systems in the cluster of merchant systems
generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating the data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system
Examiner notes that Staib discloses the system applying pricing rules that are input by the user (see at least Staib: ¶ 59, 62. and 66), wherein sales status information such as trends, inventory levels, other measures of past success or difficulty with sales, and pricing results for other merchants or channels after detecting a pricing change should be explored (see at least Staib: ¶ 51).
Staib further discloses the system automatically updating multiple sales channels (see at least Staib: ¶ 36) wherein the update can be triggered automatically by the PA module or on a merchant command (see at least Staib: ¶ 58), wherein the merchant command and “the pricing rules are set up with easily varied parameters so that as data is collected the parameters can be updated (see at least Staib: ¶ 81).
Staib further discloses that the user can place restrictions on “how frequently” prices may be changed which amounts to inputting the frequency of updating a price for all stored items within the system (see at least Staib: ¶ 61 “there may be restrictions placed on how frequently prices may be changed”; see also Staib: ¶ 36 “system uses the new, channel-specific prices to update multiple sales channels used by the merchant for conducting business in conjunction with special sales channel recognition data that allows the merchant to pursue sales' goals”; see also Staib: ¶ 58 “the Price Updater (PU) module 176 can be triggered by the PA module 174 or on a merchant command to push updated price data out to the appropriate sales channels”; see also Staib: ¶ ).
Staib further discloses that the whole system operates on predefined price setting rules that analyzes sales status data in the database for the products and channels using predefined parameters (see at least Staib: ¶ 62), wherein the system is then directed to take one of the several paths “based on the price setting goal that is predefined in the price setting rules for Product XYZ for particular sales trends, seasonality, inventory levels and storage costs or selected by the user, if the goal is selectable at the time of analysis” (see at least Staib: ¶ 62).
Staib further discloses that the price setting rules are selected and defined by the merchant through goals, parameters, and constraints (see at least Staib: ¶ 49 “The merchant's objectives and constraints are embodied in a set of price setting rules, which may have a number of selling parameters that are adjustable across all products or are specific to only one product”; see also Staib: ¶ 57 “the price setting rules can be configured to incorporate complex calculations or cost constraints that vary by channel and by recent sale data from the channel”; see also Staib: ¶ 59 “FIG. 5 shows the general flow of analysis for an example of a set of price setting rules, which assumes that there is data in the database 142 for the products and channels to be analyzed, including the various parameters necessary to define the price setting rules”; see also Staib: ¶ 59-62, 66, and 81).
Staib further discloses that the price of the products can be adjusted at any defined frequency such as daily, yearly, weekly, or any other uniquely defined parameters (see Staib: ¶ 35 “system may optimize profit margin by considering sales channel characteristics and selling parameters controllable by a merchant other than price and costs, such as making an offer based on time of day, time of year and day of week that are unique to a channel, such as those that may be found on an auction site (for example, raise a price on Sundays)”; see also Staib: ¶ 48 “The demand curve constructed is used to find an optimized or more favorable price point for the particular product. In addition to testing the market for price, the TS module 172 can test the market for other selling parameters that may be unique to a particular channel, such as what are the optimal times of day or days of week for ending an auction or how long should an auction last. The TS module 172 monitors and records the selling parameters of all sales of these tests in the database for further analysis, in particular the development of price and demand curves.”; see also Staib: ¶ 56 “TS 172 may be statistically significant to model price/sales behavior for a given product by channel, time of day, day of week, season, web site entry page, customer location, quantity discount schedule or other variables”; see also Staib: ¶ 62, 66, 69, 73, 81, 89-91, and 93).
However, Shivaswamy, which talks about techniques for competitive pricing analysis and inventory management are described. According to various exemplary embodiments, a competitive pricing system is configured to crawl competitor websites for comparative pricing information at various time intervals, teaches determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields associated with the first merchant system, wherein the data field is identified based on an updating frequency of the data field associated with other merchant systems in the cluster of merchant systems, generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating of a data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system in that “the crawling module 202 is configured to determine the specific time interval, based on a popularity score associated with the first product offered for sale on the home retailer website. For example, by analyzing sales records and purchase history information associated with the home retailer website, the crawling module 202 may assign popularity scores to each of the products offered for sale, and may adjust the crawling intervals for crawling competitor pricing information of these products accordingly” (see at least Shivaswamy: ¶ 29 and 34). The Shivaswamy reference teaches “a competitive pricing system is configured to crawl competitor websites for comparative pricing information at various time intervals” (see at least Shivaswamy: Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields, generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating of a data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system (as disclosed by Shivaswamy) to the known method and system for monitoring business listings via a computerized system where the system generates and transmits information related to business listings to merchants (as disclosed by the combination of Staib and Vierra) to <>. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields, generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating of a data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system because it would provide a system configured to crawl competitor websites for comparative pricing information at various time intervals (see Shivaswamy ¶ 73).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields, generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating of a data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system (as disclosed by Katzin) to the known method and system for monitoring business listings via a computerized system where the system generates and transmits information related to business listings to merchants (as disclosed by the combination of Staib and Vierra) to provide a system configured to crawl competitor websites for comparative pricing information at various time intervals, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields, generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating of a data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system to the known method and system for monitoring business listings via a computerized system where the system generates and transmits information related to business listings to merchants to provide a system configured to crawl competitor websites for comparative pricing information at various time intervals). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Referring to Claim 8, Staib discloses the additional claim language directed to a system comprising: a memory to store instructions; and a processing device operatively coupled to the memory,
Staib discloses a memory to store instructions; and a processing device operatively coupled to the memory (see at least Staib: ¶ 38-39). Furthermore, the storage of information is further addressed by Staib (see at least Staib: ¶ 39, 42, 72, 76, 80, and 83-84). Therefore, the combination teaches the limitations.
Referring to Claim 2, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the method of claim 1, Staib discloses further comprising: receiving, from the merchant system, one or more inputs identifying the data field and a time parameter corresponding to the rule; and generating the rule based on the one or more inputs (see at least Staib: ¶ 11, 35, 48, 56, 59, 69, 81, and 88-93).
Referring to Claim 3, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the method of claim 1, Staib discloses further comprising generating, by the processing device, the rule, wherein the rule identifies the data field and a time parameter (see at least Staib: ¶15, 35, 39, 42-43, 46, 49-52, 56-66, and 81-83).
Referring to Claim 4, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the method of claim 3, Staib discloses wherein the time parameter comprises a time frame during which at least one of the notification or one or more follow-up notifications are to be transmitted to the merchant system (see at least Staib: ¶ 11, 35, 48, 56, 59, 69, 81, and 88-93).
Referring to Claim 5, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the method of claim 4, Staib discloses wherein the time parameter comprises a frequency associated with transmitting the notification or the one or more follow-up notifications (see at least Staib: ¶ 11, 35, 48, 56, 59, 69, 81, and 88-93).
Referring to Claim 7, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the method of claim 1, Staib discloses wherein the event comprises an expiration of a time period associated with updating the data field (see at least Staib: ¶ 11, 35, 48, 56, 59, 69, 81, and 88-93; see also see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81).
Referring to Claim 9, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the system of claim 8, including wherein the activity comprises a set of data relating to updates to the data field by a plurality of third party systems in a cluster comprising the merchant system (see at least Staib: ¶ 68).
Referring to Claim 10, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the system of claim 8, including wherein the activity comprises a set of data relating to updates to the data field by the merchant system (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81).
Referring to Claim 11, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the system of claim 8, including wherein the notification is transmitted to one or more devices associated with the merchant system (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 48, 51, 58, and 81).
Referring to Claim 13, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the system of claim 12, including wherein the updated value comprises at least one of new data to complete the data field, a changed value for data corresponding to the data field, or additional data added to the data field (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81).
Referring to Claim 14, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the system of claim 12, including the processing device to execute the instructions to transmit at least a portion of the updated record to a business listing provider system (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81).
Referring to Claim 15, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the system of claim 14, including wherein the business listing provider system comprises at least one of a website associated with the merchant system or a third party search engine system (see at least Staib: ¶ 68).
Referring to Claim 18, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17, including the processing device further to transmit the updated record to a business listing provider system (see at least Staib: ¶ 29, 36, 58, and 81).
Referring to Claim 19, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Shivaswamy teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16, including wherein the processing device identifies the data field to target for updating based on determining that a search activity associated with the data field satisfies a search activity condition, wherein the search activity comprises search queries executed by an end user systems relating to business listing data of the merchant system. Staib and Vierra fail to specifically disclose wherein the processing device identifies the data field to target for updating based on determining that a search activity associated with the data field satisfies a search activity condition, wherein the search activity comprises search queries executed by an end user systems relating to business listing data of the merchant system.
However, Shivaswamy teaches wherein the processing device identifies the data field to target for updating based on determining that a search activity associated with the data field satisfies a search activity condition, wherein the search activity comprises search queries executed by an end user systems relating to business listing data of the merchant system in that “the crawling module 202 is configured to determine the specific time interval, based on a popularity score associated with the first product offered for sale on the home retailer website. For example, by analyzing sales records and purchase history information associated with the home retailer website, the crawling module 202 may assign popularity scores to each of the products offered for sale, and may adjust the crawling intervals for crawling competitor pricing information of these products accordingly” (see at least Shivaswamy: ¶ 29 and 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields, generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating of a data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system (as disclosed by Shivaswamy) to the known method and system for monitoring business listings via a computerized system where the system generates and transmits information related to business listings to merchants (as disclosed by the combination of Staib and Vierra) to <>. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields, generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating of a data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system because it would provide a system configured to crawl competitor websites for comparative pricing information at various time intervals (see Shivaswamy ¶ 73).
Referring to Claim 20, The combination of Staib, Vierra, and Katzin teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19, including wherein the search activity condition comprises a first percentage of search activity associated with the data field exceeds a threshold value of a total search activity associated with the business listing (see at least Staib: ¶ 51, 57, 68, 81, and 86).
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Examiner notes that the submitted arguments directed to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant argues:
“the claims are directed to a technological improvement, not an abstract idea. In particular, the claims address a technical problem of monitoring the update of a large number of business listings associated with a merchant”
“Generic recitation of technical or non-transitory elements, such as "a processor" or "the Internet" do not, by themselves, render a claim non-abstract. However, when the technical problem being solved is "rooted" or otherwise cannot exist without the underlying technology, the argument for an abstract idea is without merit. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”
“the elements recited in the claims have a particular, and technical, meaning directly associated with the technical problem being solved, different frequencies, analytics based on the merchant's activity, occurrence of an event, and the claims cannot be correctly interpreted to be an abstract idea”
“the claimed process cannot be practically performed in the human mind. In particular, the claims recite monitoring activities of a cluster of merchant systems, each of which has multiple business listings, and each listing is associated with a plurality of data fields”
“human minds could not perform the necessary functions of monitoring and generating rules as recited in the claims”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that the system is directed to a mental process. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Examiner notes that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 recite a method, system, and non-transitory computer for monitoring, by a processing device, activity of a cluster of merchant systems comprising a first merchant system, wherein the activity relates to an updating of a plurality of data fields of business listings of the cluster of merchant systems; determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems, a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields; generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating the data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system wherein the rule is established based on one or more selections provided by the first merchant system and at least one of the analytics based on the activity of the first merchant and one or more search query activities associated with the first merchant system, and wherein the one or more selections indicate a first frequency to update a first data field and a second frequency different from the first frequency to update a second data field of the plurality of data fields associated with the first merchant system, wherein the data field is identified based on an updating frequency of the data field associated with other merchant systems in the cluster of merchant systems; monitoring, by the processing device, the first merchant system to determine an occurrence of an event corresponding to the rule and the data field, wherein the event comprises passage of the time period during which no update to the data field has been made by the first merchant system; in response to a request from a first user to update the rule, updating the rule when the request is approved by a second user, wherein the first user is a non-admin user of the first merchant system and the second user is an admin user of the first merchant system; in response to the occurrence of the event, transmitting, by the processing device, a notification to the first merchant system, wherein the notification comprises a prompt to update a value stored in the data field of the business listing of the first merchant system; receiving, by the processing device, a response from the first merchant system comprising an updated value corresponding to the data field of the business listing of the first merchant system; causing, by the processing device, the updated value corresponding to the data field to be stored in an updated record associated with the business listing; transmitting, by the processing device, at least a portion of the updated record to a plurality of business listing provider systems; and displaying the business listing associated with the merchant system in response to a search query which is directed to concepts that are performed mentally and a product of human mental work. The limitations suggest a process similar to that of Electric Power Group, in that claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information related to a business listing, analyzing the information and displaying the result of the analysis, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that the claimed invention amounts to a mental process in that the system is collecting merchant pricing rule updates, processing the requests and displaying the updating business listing based on the update and rule application which is similar to the abstract ideas identified in Electric Power Group and Classen.
Alternatively, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.
Examiner notes that the claimed invention is similar to the abstract idea found in buySAFE v. Google, Inc., in that the claimed invention validating consent records based on stored consent and registrant information in response to receiving a command.
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction in the form of a legal obligation is found in Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 101 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed Cir. 2012). The patentee claimed a method of "aggregating real property into a real estate portfolio, dividing the interests in the portfolio into a number of deedshares, and subjecting those shares to a master agreement." 671 F.3d at 1322, 101 USPQ2d at 1788. The legal obligation at issue was the tax-free exchanges of real estate. The Federal Circuit concluded that the real estate investment tool designed to enable tax-free exchanges was an abstract concept. 671 F.3d at 1323, 101 USPQ2d at 1789. Examiner notes that the claimed invention is similar to the abstract idea found within Fort Properties in that the system is processing information in the form of registry commands based on the “master agreement” in the form of the consent record stored within the registry.
An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108.
Examiner notes that the claimed invention is similar to the abstract idea in Credit Acceptance Corp., in that the system is obtaining listing information, combining the rules and the updates, and presenting the finalized business listing based on the command.
Examiner notes that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 recite a a method, system, and non-transitory computer for monitoring, by a processing device, activity of a cluster of merchant systems comprising a first merchant system, wherein the activity relates to an updating of a plurality of data fields of business listings of the cluster of merchant systems; determining, by the processing device, in view of analytics based on the activity of the cluster of merchant systems, a frequency that the cluster of merchant systems updates a data field of the plurality of data fields associated with the first merchant system, wherein the data field is identified based on an updating frequency of the data field associated with other merchant systems in the cluster of merchant systems; generating, by the processing device, based on the frequency, a rule defining a time period associated with updating the data field of a business listing associated with the first merchant system wherein the rule is established based on one or more selections provided by the first merchant system and at least one of the analytics based on the activity of the first merchant and one or more search query activities associated with the first merchant system, and wherein the one or more selections indicate a first frequency to update a first data field and a second frequency different from the first frequency to update a second data field of the plurality of data fields; monitoring, by the processing device, the first merchant system to determine an occurrence of an event corresponding to the rule and the data field, wherein the event comprises passage of the time period during which no update to the data field has been made by the first merchant system; in response to a request from a first user to update the rule, updating the rule when the request is approved by a second user, wherein the first user is a non-admin user of the first merchant system and the second user is an admin user of the first merchant system; in response to the occurrence of the event, transmitting, by the processing device, a notification to the first merchant system, wherein the notification comprises a prompt to update a value stored in the data field of the business listing of the first merchant system; receiving, by the processing device, a response from the first merchant system comprising an updated value corresponding to the data field of the business listing of the first merchant system; causing, by the processing device, the updated value corresponding to the data field to be stored in an updated record associated with the business listing; transmitting, by the processing device, at least a portion of the updated record to a plurality of business listing provider systems; and displaying the business listing associated with the merchant system in response to a search query, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) in grouping “II” in that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity such as advertising and maintaining and monitoring business interactions such as transactions at specific business listing entities and generating and updating information related to the business listing based on the processed transactions. An example of a claim reciting advertising is found in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Ultramercial claimed an eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad. 772 F.3d. at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754. The Federal Circuit determined that the "combination of steps recites an abstraction—an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form" and thus was directed to an abstract idea, which the court described as "using advertising as an exchange or currency." Id. This is merely further embellishments of the abstract idea and does not further limit the claimed invention to render the claims patentable subject matter. The limitations above closely follow the steps standard in interactions between people and businesses such as monitoring transactions at business listings, and the steps of the claims involve organizing human activity, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “organizing human activity” grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. For example, in Mortgage Grader, the patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to "anonymous loan shopping", which was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. See also FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294 (identifying both system and process claims for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information in a health-care system computer environment as directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (system and method claims of inputting information from a hard copy document into a computer program). Accordingly, the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim.
Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356; and A computer readable medium containing program instructions for detecting fraud – CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d at 1692 n.1.
Examiner notes that the claimed in invention is similar to the Voter Verified, Inc., FairWarning, Mortgage Grader, Berkheimer, Content Extraction and CyberSource applications wherein the court identified computer system or “computer”, “processing device”, and “system” is merely serving as the generic computer, computing environment, or tool to perform the mental process.
The claims stand rejected.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20 under 103 have been considered but they are directed to amended claim language addressed in the updated rejection.
The claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 p.m.- 3:00 p.m. EST.
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, Nate Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
/Michael Young/Examiner, Art Unit 3626