DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Request for Continued Examination filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 18 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim that this application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/723,216, filed on December 20, 2019, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/882,655, filed on August 5, 2019 is acknowledged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments on page 9 of remarks filed on 12/11/2025 that the Applicant will file a terminal disclaimer without prejudice after the application is in condition for allowance. However, the non-statutory double patenting rejection will be outstanding until the terminal disclaimer is filed.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 9-14 of remarks filed on 12/11/2025 that the claims are integrated into a practical application and significantly more than the judicial exception because they improve search efficiency by automatically excluding irrelevant items to the search request which provides less items in the search results to be presented which reduces network traffic and data completeness is retained since the combined item includes data substructures which reduces memory requirements in paragraphs [0028-0029] of Applicant’s specification, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how automatically excluding items in a search requests or combining items using the data substructures of multiple items improves technology. Excluding irrelevant items from a search result and combining items may improve the commercial problem of searching for relevant items, but it is unclear how exactly technology is improved. It is unclear how displaying two less item on a user interface reduces network traffic or combining data or a first and second item reduces memory requirements. The specification fails to describe how network traffic or memory requirements are reduces and improves technology. Paragraphs [0028-0029] of applicant’s specification merely describes combining items and providing search results without any explanation of how technology is improved. The claims merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and are not significant more than the judicial exception because the claims do not improve existing technology by using the computer to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 of remarks filed on 12/11/2025 that the claims are patent eligible under Step 2B because the claims recite a particular solution for data management of a large amount of inventory items, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two. MPEP 2106.05 (II).
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B. The claims merely use a server and user interface as a tool to create combined items from orders by receiving orders, generating data, combining data, modifying data, searching data, excluding data, and updating data. Thus, the additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not add significantly more by implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 16 of remarks filed on 12/11/2025 that the cited prior art collectively or individually does not teach some of the claim amendments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 16-17 of remarks filed on 12/11/2025 that all of the claims should be allowed because Wood does not teach the claim amendments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11/321,767 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are a broader version of the reference claims. Instant claim(s) 2-21 fully “read-on” or are anticipated by reference claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11/321,767 B1. This is a non-statutory, obviousness-type Double Patenting rejection with an anticipation analysis. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(1).
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 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 2-3, 4-8 are directed to a system, claims 9-10 and 12-15 are directed to a medium, and claims 16-17 and 19-21 are directed to a method each of which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea by referring to the groupings of subject matter. One of the enumerated groupings is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 2, the abstract idea includes:
receiving a first order for a first item and a second order for a second item, the first order including a first delivery location, the second order including a second delivery location, the first item being of a first item type, the second item being of a second item type;
receiving, …, an input indicating that the first item is to be combined with the second item, the data of the first item data of the first item and data of the second item, the data of the first item stored at a first location in the inventory management data repository, the data of the second item stored at a second location in the inventory management data repository;
generating a first data substructure of the plurality of data substructures for the first item based on the data of the first item;
generating a second data substructure of the plurality of data substructures for the second item based on the data of the second item, the second data substructure being different from the first data substructure;
generating a data object that comprises the first data substructure for the first item and the second data substructure for the second item, the data object having a data structure different from the first data substructure for the first item or the second data substructure for the second item;
creating a combined item of a combined item type corresponding to the data object that comprises the first data substructure for the first item and the second data substructure for the second item, the combined item type being different from the first item type,
the combined item type being different from the second item type;
updating the inventory management data repository by at least: adding data of the combined item the inventory management data repository;
modifying the data of the first item stored at the first location in the inventory management data repository such that the first item is excluded from a search result of a search request including an indication of the first item type;
modifying the data of the second item stored at the second location in the inventory management data repository;
receiving the search request including the indication of the first item type, the first item type being associated with the first item, and the first item type being not associated with the combined item;
querying the inventory management data repository using the search request: anand generating a list of inventory items based at least in part on the querying, the list of inventory items excluding the first item;
determining to exclude the first item and the combined item from a search result of the querying based on the updated inventory management data repository;
and generating a list of inventory items based at least in part on the querying, the list of inventory items excluding the first item and the combined item.
The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement to create inventory items. This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions regarding searching for inventory items such as receiving input to combine a first item and a second item, generate a data object based on data substructures of the first and second items, and create a combined item comprising the first and second data substructures, modifying the data, receiving a search request, and querying using the request, and generating a list of inventory items excluding the first item and combined item. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A system for inventory management using an inventory management data repository and a plurality of data substructures, the system comprising: processing hardware of a server; and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processing hardware, cause the processing hardware to perform operations comprising:… (Claim 2);
causing presenting the first order and the second order via a user interface;… via the user interface …(Claims 2, 9, and 16);
wherein the user interface comprises a first region for specifying the first item and the second item, the first region overlaying a second region displaying a catalog of items (Claims 3, 10, 17);
wherein the server is directly connected to a bid data repository via a first data connection, wherein the server is directly connected to the inventory management data repository via a second data connection, wherein the server is connected to a client computing device via an external network, and wherein the first data connection and the second data connection do not pass through the external network (Claims 8 and 15);
A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising: (Claim 9).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A system for inventory management using an inventory management data repository and a plurality of data substructures, the system comprising: processing hardware of a server; and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processing hardware, cause the processing hardware to perform operations comprising:… (Claim 2);
causing presenting the first order and the second order via a user interface;… via the user interface …(Claims 2, 9, and 16);
wherein the user interface comprises a first region for specifying the first item and the second item, the first region overlaying a second region displaying a catalog of items (Claims 3, 10, 17);
wherein the server is directly connected to a bid data repository via a first data connection, wherein the server is directly connected to the inventory management data repository via a second data connection, wherein the server is connected to a client computing device via an external network, and wherein the first data connection and the second data connection do not pass through the external network (Claims 8 and 15);
A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising: (Claim 9).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHale et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0043629 A1, hereinafter “McHale”) in view of Psota et al. (US Pub. No. 20150073929 A1, hereinafter “Psota”) in further view of Zengerle et al. (US Pub. No. 20180060364 A1, hereinafter “Zengerle”).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16
McHale discloses a system for inventory management using an inventory management data repository and a plurality of data substructures, the system comprising: processing hardware of a server; and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processing hardware, cause the processing hardware to perform operations comprising (McHale, [0163]: computer and memory; [0164]: processor):
the first item being of a first item type, the second item being of a second item type (McHale, [0094]: identify an item by item category; [0103]: item properties include item category; [0092]: one or more items);
receiving, via the user interface, an input indicating that the first item is to be combined with the second item, data of the first item and data of the second item, the data of the first item stored at a first location in the inventory management data repository, the data of the second item stored at a second location in the inventory management data repository (McHale, FIG. 11, [0110]: user may combine items to create a new parent catalog entry to form composite item between item 1 and items N which respectively each have a records stored in databases; [0116]: user interface enables user to combine auction items into a composite auction item. As shown in FIG. 22, the user may select pending donated items or items already published in a catalog for combination into a composite auction item; [0084]: The data parameters describing item are placed in memory, as database records or objects; [0085]: records stored in databases);
generating a first data substructure of the plurality of data substructures for the first item based on the data of the first item; generating a second data substructure of the plurality of data substructures for the second item based on the data of the second item, …(McHale, [0103]: create item records with item properties include item name, description, desired category, estimated value, and donor name; [0110]: Other properties of Item 1 and Item N, such as item descriptions, images, etc. and the item properties include different properties of the individual component items; FIG. 9C, [0084]: different items names for each item);
generating a data object that comprises the first data substructure for the first item and the second data substructure for the second item, …and creating a combined item of a combined item type corresponding to the data object that comprises the first data substructure for the first item and the second data substructure for the second item, …(McHale, [0045]: When an object is created at runtime memory is allotted and data structures are created; [0007]: combine individual donated items into aggregate item offerings; [0110]: creating new parent catalog entry by combining the properties of multiple items to form a composite or parent item based on records from multiple databases; [0085]:data structures implemented as objects and these record objects may be stored in any of the databases illustrated in the figures and may include data which simultaneously resides as parts of other records in other databases; [0116]: Selected data fields within the parent record object, such as item name, lot number and category, may be user-defined and an catalog builder utility function which enables the process as outlined herein and in FIG. 11 and generates the interfaces of FIG. 22-23, may be part of the Platform tools server 402, the construction given the disclosure of data structures herein, including the data type and methods of the relevant record objects; [0103]: item properties include item category; FIG. 28, [0153]: a category of items may be a collection of items with some commonality grouped according to theme and items can be listed in multiple categories that are different);
and updating the inventory management data repository by at least: adding data of the combined item the inventory management data repository; (McHale, [0110]: properties of item 1 and item N are edited and merged and added to the parent item; [0111]: combined items are maintained as parent item; [0116]: child items records are combined in parent record and saved; [0085]: record stored in database);
modifying the data of the first item stored at the first location in the inventory management data repository such that the first item is excluded…,… including an indication of the first item type, modifying the data of the second item stored at the second location in the inventory management data repository (McHale, [0084]: edit item by adding additional properties of the selected item; [0110]:combine individual item with parent item and remove the individual items; [0084]: a search query initiated; [0107]: queries are made into the respective databases, and resulting data is then assembled a Web page which can be displayed; [0155]: searches items that are accessible then display items based on category user selects on web page);
receiving the search request including the indication of the first item type, the first item type being associated with the first item,…; querying the inventory management data repository using the search request; determining…the first item and the combined item… based on the updated inventory management data repository; and generating a list of inventory items based at least in part on the querying, the list of inventory items …the first item and the combined item (McHale, [0084]: search query and display pending items; [0063]: filters the queries received from web server and database query engine which is integrated into database; FIG. 11, [0110]: the combined item and individual item; [0155]: searches items and designate which category of items are to be viewed and display pending items within the category; [0103]: item properties includes category; [0114]: combined item).
McHale does not teach:
receiving a first order for a first item and a second order for a second item, the first order including a first delivery location, the second order including a second delivery location,…
causing presenting the first order and the second order via a user interface;
…the second data substructure being different from the first data substructure;… the data object having a data structure different from the first data substructure for the first item or the second data substructure for the second item;… the combined item type being different from the first item type, the combined item type being different from the second item type;… and the first item type being not associated with the combined item;
such that the first item is excluded from a search result of a search request…(emphasis added);
determining to exclude … from a search result of the querying …(emphasis added);
… excluding …(emphasis added).
However, Psota teaches:
receiving a first order for a first item and a second order for a second item, the first order including a first delivery location, the second order including a second delivery location; causing presenting the first order and the second order via a user interface (Psota, [0028]: collect a plurality of records of customer transactions including shipment data and aggregating transaction data; [0033]: provide user interface for a user to retrieve aggregated transaction data; [0491]: shipment data includes shipper address; [0310]: a plurality of transaction records 3402 may be collected and presented; [0158]: records relating to transaction maybe presented to the user);
such that the first item is excluded from a search result of a search request…(emphasis added); determining to exclude … from a search result of the querying … (emphasis added);… excluding …(emphasis added) (Psota, [0408]: restrict or limit his inquiry search; [0410]: filter search results based on parameters so products excluded from the search results; [0388]: prevent listings in search results; [0275]: Filtering tools drill down into particular categories or subcategories).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first item and combined item of McHale with the receipt and display presentation of the first and second orders and the exclusion from search results as taught by Psota because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, McHale would continue to teach the first item and combined item, except that now the receipt and display presentation of the first and second orders and the exclusion from search results is taught according to the teachings of Psota. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Psota, [0410] and [0310]).
However, Zengerle teaches:
…the second data substructure being different from the first data substructure;… the data object having a data structure different from the first data substructure for the first item or the second data substructure for the second item;… the combined item type being different from the first item type, the combined item type being different from the second item type;… and the first item type being not associated with the combined item (Zengerle, [0013]: data objects have different data structures; [0014]: different types of data; [0015]: different data structures corresponding to different system interfaces. The different structures may include different fields of information, and different substructures; [0019]: the plurality of data objects may include a first data object having a first data structure and a second data object having a second data structure that is different than the first data structure; [0047]: different types of data objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the data structures and items of McHale and Psota with different substructures, data structures, and item types are implemented as two different database views of a single common data structure as taught by Zengerle because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, McHale and Psota would continue to teach the data structures and items except that now different substructures, data structures, and item types are taught according to the teachings of Zengerle in order to handle different types of data easier. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Zengerle, [0014-0016]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19
The combination of McHale, Psota, and Zengerle teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the combined item corresponds with a supplier bid (McHale, [0093]: items may be a composite parent auction item; [0109]: a starting bid of any of the individual component auction items within the parent item; [0110]: enable bidding on new parent item, that results from the combination of individual items 1100 and 1102).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21
The combination of McHale, Psota, and Zengerle teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: removing, from the inventory management data repository, the first item and the second item in response to the input indicating that the first item is to be combined with the second item (McHale, [0044]: creation, use, and destruction of objects; [0045]: objects are destroyed by a special function called a destructor; [0084]: items may be deleted from the current catalog; [0110]: creating new parent catalog entry by combining the properties of multiple auction items to form a composite or parent item).
Regarding claims 8 and 15
The combination of McHale, Psota, and Zengerle teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the server is directly connected to a bid data repository via a first data connection, wherein the server is directly connected to the inventory management data repository via a second data connection, wherein the server is connected to a client computing device via an external network and wherein the first data connection and the second data connection do not pass through the external network. (McHale, [0010]: a computer system operatively connectable to a network and capable of communicating with one or more other processes operatively connectable to the network; [0046]: network environment; FIG. 2, [0047]: database and servers interconnected over private network; [0066]: the end-user applications 400, specialty front end applications 410, business logic applications 420, and database applications 430 may execute or their own separate system, accessible through private networks; [0054]: prevent unauthorized access to private networks; [0060]: Web server 260 functions to render pages to a network user connected to the web server 260 and to pass data received from a network user to database).
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHale, Psota, and Zengerle as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Woods (US Pub. No. 20070300173 A1, hereinafter “Woods”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17
The combination of McHale, Psota, and Zengerle teaches the system of claim 2,
The combination of McHale, Psota, and Zengerle does not teach:
wherein the user interface comprises a first region for specifying the first item and the second item, the first region overlaying a second region displaying a catalog of items.
However, Woods teaches that it is known to include:
wherein the user interface comprises a first region for specifying the first item and the second item, the first region overlaying a second region displaying a catalog of items (Woods, [0008]: multiple clusters of items that overlap in a given portion of the cluster display window, the inset window providing information regarding each of the underlying clusters where multiple windows may overlap with one another on the display screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified displaying items of McHale, Psota, and Zengerle with items displayed in a first region overlaying a second region as taught by Woods because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, McHale, Psota, and Zengerle would continue to teach displaying items except that now items displayed in a first region overlaying a second region is taught according to the teachings of Woods in order to quickly compare items. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Woods, [0008]).
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHale, Psota, and Zengerle as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Molloy (US Pub. No. 2008/0133400 A1, hereinafter “Molloy”).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20
The combination of McHale, Psota, and Zengerle teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the operations further comprise: determining that an expiration date associated with the supplier bid …(McHale, [0094]: The finish time variable identifies the date and time at which the auction for the auction item is complete).
The combination of McHale, Psota, and Zengerle teaches an expiration date for an auction but does not explicitly teach:
determining that an expiration date associated with the supplier bid has passed; and removing, from the inventory management data repository, the supplier bid (emphasis added).
However, Molloy teaches that it is known to include:
determining that an expiration date associated with the supplier bid has passed; and removing, from the inventory management data repository, the supplier bid (emphasis added) (Molloy, [0119]: expiration. This is the time at which the bid will expire. Note that when this point in time is reached, the Bid 7000 object will invoke its own method 7056 withdraw; [0123]: bid removed from the bidset when the auction is closed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified a bid expiration date of McHale, Psota, and Zengerle with determined that the bid has expired and the bid is removed as taught by Molloy because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, McHale, Psota, and Zengerle would continue to teach a bid expiration date except that now it is determined that the bid has expired and the bid is removed according to the teachings of Molloy in order to conduct auctions and manage closed auctions. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Molloy, [0123]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as patent publication no. Wai et al. (US Pub. No. 20150026144 A1) related to content items are combined into a combined content item and providing the combined content item as a search result as well as non-patent literature "Developing Online Auction with Behavioral and Intuitive Functions," related to analyzing consumer behavior in e-commerce auctions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached on 5712726763. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688