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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 3/19/2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 1), system (Claim 8), and/or non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Claim 15), thus Claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite:
scanning a publisher system of a set of publisher systems to identify a
published merchant listing associated with the publisher system, wherein the published merchant listing comprises a first set of data fields and a first set of data field values associated with a merchant system;
executing a transformation on the first set of data field values, wherein the
transformation comprises decoding the first set of data field values;
following the transformation, comparing, on a field-by-field basis, the
published merchant listing to a target merchant listing comprising a second set of data fields and a second set of data field values associated with the merchant system, wherein the comparing comprises calculating a probability that describes the likelihood of a first data value of a first data field of the published merchant listing transforming into a second data value of a second data field of the target merchant listing based at
least on an optimum path comprising one or more edit types taken to transform the first data value into the second data value, wherein the probability comprises a prior probability and the prior
probability is calculated based on the one or more edit types;
identifying, based on the comparing, a discrepancy between the first data value
and the second data value;
accepting or rejecting the published merchant listing, by the merchant system
based on the discrepancy; and
publishing, in response to rejecting the published merchant listing, the target
merchant listing to the publisher system.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, covers the performance of commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; or business relations). Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of commercial or legal interactions which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for comparing sets of merchant information to determine if they are related to the same merchant, thus facilitating reconciliation of multiple data sets.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
a computer;
a system comprising: a memory to store instructions and a processing device to execute the instructions to perform the claim steps;
a publisher system;
a merchant system;
a data graph;
a data repository;
API documentation used for editing; and/or
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device of a source system, cause the processing device to perform the claim steps.
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions such as collecting data, transmitting data, analyzing data, storing data, and displaying data, see specification at [0019]-[0021]; [0023]; and [0075]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
It is also note for future reference, that the generically recited repository and data graph, under some interpretations, may also be implemented in non-computer environments.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite further elements related to the analysis, scoring, and message improvement steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite “causing generation of a graphical user interface comprising an indication of the discrepancy”. The graphical user interface used in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality and is recited merely as a tool for displaying data. The claims are directed to the same abstract ideas identified in the independent claims the general use of a graphical user interface to perform the display of an indication does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 17 recite “wherein the comparing is performed according to a set of comparison rules comprising a first rule associated with a first field type of the target merchant listing and a second field type of the target merchant listing” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 recite “identifying the first data field of the first set of data fields of the published merchant listing is the first field type” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite “wherein the first data field of the published merchant listing is compared to the second data field of the target merchant listing in accordance with the first rule” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite “wherein the comparing is performed according to a machine learning process”. The machine learning process used in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality and is recited merely as a tool for performing these steps. The claims are directed to the same abstract ideas identified in the independent claims the general use of a machine learning process to perform the comparing does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Relevant Prior Art:
The closest prior art references to the invention, as previously applied to the claims, include:
Spehr et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0029467 A1). Discloses a memory [and/or non-transitory computer readable storage medium] to store instructions; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: scanning, by a processing device, a publisher system of a set of publisher systems to identify a published merchant listing associated with the publisher system, wherein the published merchant listing comprises a first set of data fields and a first set of data field values associated with a merchant system; retrieving records form multiple sources (including three sources or more); retrieving, prior to sending to the publisher system, by the processing device, merchant listing data stored in a repository, wherein the merchant listing data stored in the repository comprises a third set of data fields and a third set of data field values associated with the merchant system; determining that the second set of data field values and the third set of data field values are a match; determining that the second set of data field values and the first set of data filed values are not a match; executing, by the processing device, a transformation on the first set of data field values, wherein the transformation comprises decoding the first set of data field values; following the cleaning operation, identifying, on a field-by-field basis, a degree of difference between the published merchant listing and the target merchant listing comprising a second set of data fields and a second set of data field values associated with the merchant system; accepting or rejecting the published merchant listing, by the merchant system based on the discrepancy; and publishing, in response to rejecting the published merchant listing, the target merchant listing to the publisher system.
Agarwal et al. (EP 3133511 A1). Discloses wherein the identifying comprises calculating a probability that describes the likelihood of a first data value of a first data field of the published merchant listing transforming into a second data value of a second data field of the target merchant listing.
None of the prior art alone or in combination teach(es) the claimed invention as recited in the independent claims including, but not limited to, in conjunction with the data retrieval and reconciliations, editing, by the publisher system, the first set of data field values based on a display format of the publisher system; retrieving a target merchant listing from the merchant data graph; and editing, by the processing device, the third set of data field values based on an API documentation of the publisher system, wherein the novelty is not in a single limitation but rather in the combination of all the claimed limitations.
Manning et al. (US 11,880,379 B1). Discloses determination of collecting and matching records (including address data), including normalizing the data, using Levenshtein distance and path calculations, and degree matching (see at least [0013]; [0097]; [0147]). However, Manning does not disclose the use of editing based on a display format of the system, editing, or based on an API documentation of the system, or the steps for receiving a target listing.
Additional Relevant Prior Art Identified but not Relied Upon
Baker, Jr. et al. (US 11,269,841 B1). Discloses determination of matching text, including cleaning/converting the data and using Levenshtein distance calculations (see at least Abstract; column 2, SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, paragraph 1; column 3, paragraph 3; column 7, paragraph 2; column 10, paragraphs 2-4).
Bhattacharjee et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0089258A1). Discloses a related system/method as described in the Written Opinion of The ISA (included with the IDS filed on 10/30/2023) (see at least [0311]; [0312]; [0329]; [0475]; [0614]).
Fuchs et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0260628 A1). Discloses data integration including identifying discrepancies in data (such as address information) between a plurality of data sources. (see at least [0131], system collects data for entities from multiple sources, including address data and can identify discrepancies; [0093], the system can reconcile and integrate the disparate data records). Also formats records to fir applications (APIs), however, it does not specify editing of field values based on an API documentation (see at least [0054]). Also discloses geospatial databases (graph data), however this is used for mapping the address (and other associated) data for virtual maps and not for retrieving target listings (see at least [0055], also discussed throughout reference)
Godeby et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0055324 A1). Discloses business data reconciliation for data from different data sources (see at least [0012]).
Guha et al. (CA 3141742 A1). Discloses correlating data from different sources and identifying discrepancies and includes cleaning operations (see at least [009]; [042]; [045]; [131]; [134]-[138]; [146]-[148]; [153]-[156]).
Jagota et al. (US 2020/0250576 A1). Discloses matching of input user data to previous user data to determine matches between data for that user (see at least [0006]; [0086]). See also, Jagota et al. (WO 2020191355 A1).
Johnson et al. (US 11,960,459 B1). Discloses the use of matching and merging customer profiles, including confidence scores, standardizing and normalizing data. Matching data fields, training on prior combinations (see at least Abstract; col 2; col 8, par 1 and 3; col 14, par 4-col 15, par 3; Claim 9).
Li (SG 10201904554T A). Discloses determination of a minimum number of operations and minimum path for transforming one text string into another (see at least [008]; [0044]; [0087]; [00113]).
Musgrove et al. (US 2004/0143600 A1). Discloses the use of prior probability in comparing new product catalog listing to previous products listed in the catalog (see at least [0245]). See also, Musgrove et al. (US 2012/0191719 A1).
Newman et al. (US 11,880,379 B1). Discloses determination of matching text, including normalizing the data and using Levenshtein distance calculations (see at least column 3, paragraph 1; column 4, paragraph 5; column 11, paragraphs 4-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
As previously discussed, the material in the specification is not sufficient to explain how/why the claimed invention would provide an improvement.
“Rather, the specification explains that merchant listings are published across multiple third-party publisher systems, that those publisher systems may display inaccurate or out-of-date data, and that they may even change the merchant information after synchronization. (Emphasis Added) That is why the verification system scans the listings on publisher sites and compares what is actually found there with the information stored in the verification system so that corrected listing data can be provided for publication. Para. [0013].”
This merely describes the claimed invention and the intended benefits, however, it does not provide evidence of the alleged improvement or how it is achieved in a significant manner. It merely asserts as to the benefits without any background or comparison regarding how it improves over conventional systems/methods.
“The specification then explains how this is accomplished. The listing verification system maintains a data graph database including a merchant system data graph containing the verified or target merchant listing. The listing comparator retrieves the target merchant listing from that merchant system data graph. Figure 2 and para. [0035]-[0036] further separate three distinct states of listing data: Dataset A, i.e., the merchant listing as stored in the data graph of the listing verification system; Dataset B, i.e., merchant listing data stored in a repository prior to "pushing" or sending to the publisher system; and Dataset C, i.e., the merchant listing as published on the publisher system. The specification further explains that transform 1 is performed to match expected publisher-system guidelines based on the publisher system's API documentation, while transform 2 involves publisher- system edits to displayed data as compared to what is delivered to the publisher system. The listing comparator then audits Dataset A against Dataset C to determine whether the published data matches or not. Upon determining that the Dataset A and Dataset C do not match, the listing comparator identifies the degree of difference between Dataset A and Dataset C in order to publish the correct merchant listing from the publisher system.”
Again, this merely describes what the claim does (or is intended to do), but there is no detail explaining how this provides an improvement over conventional systems/methods in the art. Applicant merely asserts that it is an improvement. Additionally, there is material argued that is not part of the claims, for example, the claims do not include “verified or target merchant listings”. Applicant then lists claim elements and asserts that the steps are not merely generic instructions without any additional evidence or arguments. Applicant does not provide any evidence to demonstrate how/why it would be a specific technical workflow (as related to the alleged improvement).
Applicant asserts that the claims are similar to Example 42, but fails to explain how/why the claimed invention is similar to or comparable to Example 42. Applicant asserts that:
“Rather, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior systems by enabling the verification system to identify and remedy discrepancies in merchant listings after synchronization, even when publisher systems change displayed data from what was delivered (during synchronization). (Emphasis Added) Here, amended claim 1 does more than generically collect and compare information. It recites a particular staged verification regime that distinguishes pre-provisioning and post-publication listing states and identifying and correcting the discrepancies in the merchant listings.”
As above, Applicant fails to explain how the alleged improvement is achieved over the prior systems (such as a specific problem in the art and how it is specifically addressed in a meaningful manner, deficiencies with previous systems such as why they could not/would not provide these services, how Applicant’s specific “regime” or “ordered combination” improves on the art, etc.). Applicant, again, merely asserts to these alleged improvements without evidence of how these alleged improvements are achieved and/or provided.
As provided in the previous office action:
Examiner has reviewed the specification recited by Applicant in regards to Applicant’s remarks regarding sufficient evidence under MPEP §2106.05(a). Examiner still believes this material (or any other material) provides sufficient evidence under MPEP §2106.05(a). As a non-limiting example, [0011] merely asserts that performing verification on merchant listings would be too time consuming or risky for current or previous systems. [0012-0013] merely describes activities performed by the claimed invention and alleges benefits. However, it does not clearly explain or provide evidence to demonstrate how/why the claimed invention improvises over prior systems/methods. For example, there is no explanation regarding prior system and why they could not or would not be able to perform these activities. There is no discussion of the deficiencies of these prior systems (aside from assertions that they are deficient). The specification does not make clear how the alleged improvements are achieved in a meaningful manner beyond the recited abstract ideas. Likewise additional cited paragraphs discuss the operations of the claimed invention, but do not provide sufficient detail regarding how the alleged improvement (to the art or to the technology)is achieved in a meaningful manner. The specification does state the alleged improvements in a conclusory manner, for example, any alleged improvements to stability and accuracy of predictions is not explained but rather just asserted to (see [0049]). It is unclear how/why the use of Levenshtein distance and Bayesian probability would significantly improve stability/accuracy over prior system and why prior system could/would not incorporate them, thus not clearly indicating how the art or computer is improved in this manner.
Applicant fails to explain how/why the claimed invention is similar to or comparable to Example 47.
Some of the above remarks were addressed in previous office action. Please refer to those office action for additional detail (including citations to MPEP 2106.05(a)).
II. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103:
The prior art rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
Conclusion
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 SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 August 15, 2026
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights