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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 28, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 13 have been amended in the response filed December 28, 2025.
Claims 5 and 14 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 are pending.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 are rejected.
Detailed rejections begin on page 3.
Response to Arguments begins on page 11.
Subject Matter Overcomes Prior Art
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 recite subject matter free of prior art. Reasons for indicating subject matter overcoming prior art can be found in the Office Action dated June 26, 2025.
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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The steps for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be found in the MPEP § 2106.03-2106.05.
Under Step 1, the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-4 and 6-10, is directed to a machine. Additionally, the method, as claimed in claims 11-13 and 15-19, is directed to a process.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of creating a product catalog. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
storing said EPSs listing at least associated products and information;
create, modify and update at least one EPS (enabled product set) for display in multiple shops; said at least one EPS to provide continuously updated fulfillment and product information for its products through integration with at least a product supplier, comprising:
manual and automatic creation, editing and updating of said at least one EPS;
receive at least one user selected EPS and to match said at least one user selected EPS to at least one template for display within at least one shop of said user;
provide recommendations according to shop end-user activity; and
automatically update said multiple shops by implementing a change propagation mechanism configured to propagate a single update to at least one EPS for one or more of said multiple shops, to ensure data consistency across the multiple shops, comprising:
receive said fulfillment and product update information from a supplier; and
automatically merge said fulfillment and product information with changes previously performed by a merchant using said at least one EPS, to further resolve data conflicts between a supplier update and changes from said merchant based on a predefined set of rules to update said at least one EPS accordingly.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in the guidance. When considering MPEP §2106.04(a), the claims recite an abstract idea. For example, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of creating a product catalog, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined in the MPEP as including “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).” MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because create, modify and update at least one EPS (enabled product set) for display in multiple shops; said at least one EPS to provide continuously updated fulfillment and product information for its products through integration with at least a product supplier, comprising: provide recommendations according to shop end-user activity is a sales activity. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The recited limitations also recite the abstract idea of managing interactions between people. Namely, automatically update said multiple shops by implementing a change propagation mechanism configured to propagate a single update to at least one EPS for one or more of said multiple shops, to ensure data consistency across the multiple shops, comprising: receive said fulfillment and product update information from a supplier; and automatically merge said fulfillment and product information with changes previously performed by a merchant using said at least one EPS, to further resolve data conflicts between a supplier update and changes from said merchant based on a predefined set of rules to update said at least one EPS accordingly is managing personal interactions because merging the received fulfillment and product information requires following rules or instructions. Limitations that focus on following rules are considered abstract even if they are performed by a computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The recited limitations of representative claim 1 further recite an abstract idea because they are considered to be mental processes. As described in the MPEP, mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection III. In this case, storing said EPSs listing at least products and information related to said products; create, modify and update at least one EPS (enabled product set) for display in multiple shops; said at least one EPS to provide continuously updated fulfillment and product information for its products through integration with at least a product supplier, comprising: manual and automatic creation, editing and updating of said at least one EPS; provide recommendations according to shop end-user activity; and automatically update said multiple shops by implementing a change propagation mechanism configured to propagate a single update to at least one EPS for one or more of said multiple shops, to ensure data consistency across the multiple shops, comprising: provide a direct link to communicate with a supplier to receive said fulfillment and product update information for a particular product; and automatically merge said fulfillment and product information with changes previously performed by a merchant using said at least one EPS, to further resolve data conflicts between a supplier update and changes from said merchant based on a predefined set of rules to update said at least one EPS accordingly are types of judgement. Additionally, receive at least one user selected EPS and to match said at least one user selected EPS to at least one template for display within at least one shop of said user; and receive said fulfillment and product update information from a supplier are types of observation. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a system comprising: a processor; at least one database; and an e-shop developer system running on said processor in communication with a website building system (WBS), multiple e-shops over different websites of said WBS; live integration; said e-shop developer system comprising: an EPS generator tool; an e-shop builder; and an evaluation and integration engine according to: e-shop end-user activity and at least one ML (machine learning) model; and an updater comprising: an Application Programming Interface (API) handler; and a rule based change merge module.
Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., creating a product catalog) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See MPEP §2106.05.
In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components ... ‘ad[d] nothing ... that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Also see MPEP §2106.05(f). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-10 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 4 and 7-9 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1. Also, claims 2-3, 6, and 10 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract limitations recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, it is noted that claims 2-3 and 10 do not include further additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Furthermore, it is noted that claim 4 includes further additional elements of said EPS generator tool further comprises at least one of: an EPS editor; a schema matcher; a questionnaire presenter; a spatial EPS evaluator; and an automatic EPS generator; claim 6 includes further additional elements of said API handler uses at least one of an API (application programming interface), an SPI (Service provider interface), a web services based connection and system to system communication; claim 7 includes further additional elements of said e-shop builder comprises at least one of: an e-shop editor; an EPS template associator; an EPS template searcher to search in template repositories; an EPS template generator to generate at runtime; and an e-shop previewer; claim 8 includes further additional elements of said evaluation and integration engine comprises: an information gatherer to gather information from said at least one database and operational data from external monitoring or data collection systems; at least one ML (machine learning) model; a ML (machine learning) trainer to train said at least one ML model; an information analyzer; and a recommender; and claim 9 includes further additional elements of said information analyzer comprises at least one of: a feature extractor; a channel effectiveness analyzer; an aggregator; and a scorer and ranker. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-10 are also ineligible.
Lastly, the analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Although literally invoking a method, claims 11-13 and 15-19 remain only broadly and generally defined, with the claimed functionality paralleling that of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10, respectively. The claims do not recite any further additional elements not previously recited in claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. As such, claims 11-13 and 15-19 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. However, in view of the amendments, new grounds of rejection have been applied. These new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to pages 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the claims are directed to a specific technical solution for a technical problem inherent in distributed computing systems: the challenge of efficiently maintaining data integrity and consistency across multiple, disparate e-shops that are updated from multiple, conflicting data sources. This is fundamentally a computer-networking and data- management problem, not merely a business one.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP and previous court cases have provided guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he 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,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner...the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
The courts have employed this technique, for example in Finjan. In Finjan, the specification of the ‘844 patent described a “behavior-based” approach to virus scanning was an improvement over traditional “code-matching” systems because the “behavior-based” scans can analyze downloadable code and determine whether it performs dangerous or unwanted operations, which allows for more flexible and nuanced virus filtering to protect against previously unknown viruses or obfuscated code. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The court determined that a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem is a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement, thus deeming the ‘844 patent eligible. Id.
In this case, the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology because, unlike Finjan, the claims do not recite a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement using specific steps to solve a computer-specific problem, and the specification does not describe a technical solution to a computer-specific problem. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This is reflected in paragraphs [0081]-[0082] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving abstract problems such as creating and updating a personalized product catalog. Reciting a change propagation mechanism that updates the product catalog based on pre-defined rules does not make the claims directed to a technical solution because, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited change propagation mechanism is akin to a decision tree. Neither Applicant’s claims nor Specification explain how the change propagation mechanism is implemented in a technological way because following pre-defined rules is an abstract idea and not a specific technological implementation.
Furthermore, creating and updating a personalized product catalog via a change propagation mechanism is not a computer-specific problem; rather, it is a problem that exists in the business realm. The improvements that Applicant cites in their argument, such as improving data integrity and consistency across multiple, disparate e-shops, refer to an improvement of the abstract idea simply from the application of the abstract idea to a generic computer. In contrast to Finjan, the claims of the instant invention do not identify a specific improvement to the computer capabilities themselves because the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process.” Rather, the instant claims are directed to improving the commercial and mental task of creating and updating personalized product catalogs by applying the abstract idea to a generic computing environment.
Although the claims include computer technology, such additional elements are merely recited in a generic manner and peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. The claims, as a whole, are not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field because the claims are not solving a computer-specific problem using specific, non-abstract steps. The claims are not, for example, improving the processor and/or computer components that operate the system because the claims do not recite the specific technological steps required for the system to create, modify, or update the ESPs, such as, for example, what actions trigger the system to achieve the Applicant’s alleged solution “automatically.” For example, neither the Specification nor the claims demonstrate how the change merge module automatically merges the data in a technical way that is an improvement to how the computer operates beyond stating that a change propagation mechanism implements pre-defined rules. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while employing generic computer components to improve how personalized catalogs are created and updated, i.e. improving the commercial and mental process by applying the abstract idea to a generic computing environment. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements, and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[s]imilar to the patent-eligible claims in Enfish, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the functioning of the computer system itself. The claimed ‘change propagation mechanism’ results in tangible technical benefits, including reduced processing overhead and enhanced data consistency across the network. This is not merely the result of using a faster computer, but a specific, improved technological process for updating distributed data, directly improving the system's efficiency and scalability.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Enfish, the claims were determined to be eligible because the court determined that the claims were directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claimed limitations disclosed a specific manner of a self-referential table for a computer database rather than the abstract idea of using conventional database methods or any form of storing tabular data. Id. This improvement was further supported in the specification which noted a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. Id. Therefore, in Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. Id.
Here, the claims are not like those recited in Enfish because the claims do not recite a specific, non-abstract improvement to a non-abstract computer problem. Rather, the claims are implementing abstract ideas on a generic computer to solve the business problem of creating and updating a product catalog. Applicant alleges that the claims achieve a technical solution, but even if that were true, the claims do not set forth the specific technological steps to achieve such a solution. Instead, the claims recite abstract steps that are performed by generic computer elements to achieve said solution. For example, neither the claims nor the specification explain how the pre-defined rules of the change propagation mechanism influence the computer’s functioning in a technological way. Rather, the claims merely recite that conflicts are resolved based on pre-defined rules via a change merge module, or, in other words, an abstract idea being applied to a computer. Therefore, unlike Enfish, the claims do not recite an improvement to technology, and the rejection is maintained in this aspect.
With respect to pages 12-13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “akin to the invention in DDR Holdings, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem that specifically arises in the realm of distributed e-commerce networks.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In DDR Holdings the court found that the “claimed solution [was] necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The court noted that the problem addressed by the claimed invention was a problem specific to the Internet and/or computer networks – that is, the problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine and convention functioning of Internet link protocol, would instantly be transported away from a host's website after “clicking” on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink. Id. The court noted that the DDR Holdings claims did not broadly and generically claim “use of the Internet” to perform an abstract business practice and the DDR Holdings claims “specif[ied] how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” Id. Furthermore, the court noted that the claims in DDR Holdings did not “recite a commonplace business method aimed at processing business information, applying a known business process to the particular technological environment of the Internet, or creating or altering contractual relations using generic computer functions and conventional network operations.” Id.
In contrast to the claims in DDR Holdings, the claims at issue are not “necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Unlike the claims in DDR Holdings, the present claims recite functions that could be performed outside of the Internet or computing networks. For example, absent the computing components recited in the claims, a human can create, modify, and update enabled product sets for distribution to multiple shops by sending and receiving product information from suppliers and merging or reconciling that information. A human can also employ a change propagation mechanism based on pre-defined rules by employing a decision tree. The implementation of a change merge module is thus a generic computing component that is recited as functioning in its ordinary capacity, which is sending and receiving data.
Furthermore, the change merge module is merely a generic computing element that performs the mental process of merging data. Thus, the present claims do not recite an improvement to the technology because the improvement asserted by Applicant only occurs due to the abstract idea’s application to the generic computer. Such an improvement as asserted by Applicant is merely an improvement to the abstract idea, not to the technology itself, and thus makes the claims ineligible. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that acceleration of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101).
As such, unlike DDR Holdings, the claims do “recite a commonplace business method aimed at processing business information, applying a known business process to the particular technological environment of the Internet, or creating or altering contractual relations using generic computer functions and conventional network operations.” Thus, neither the API handler nor the change merge module, individually or in combination, recite an improvement to technology, and the rejection is maintained in this aspect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-5820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 11am-7pm 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, Marissa Thein, can be reached on (571) 272-6764. 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.
/KATHERINE A BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 2/10/2026