DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 10/27/2025. Claims 1, 12, and 18 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
3. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a process (i.e., a series of acts or steps), claim 12 recites a machine (i.e., concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 18 recites a manufacture (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.) Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
5. Claim 1 which is representative of claims 12 and 18 recites:
“providing…access to view information about a technology product and evaluate the technology product in a given context, wherein the technology product is provided by a specified vendor;”, “receiving…a request to evaluate the technology product in the given context;”, “in response to the request, identify whether at least one guidance rule of the guidance rules is applicable to the technology product in the given context;”, “wherein…indicates that any technology product provided by the specified vendor is covered by the at least one guidance rule”, “in response to identifying that the at least one guidance rule is applicable to the technology product in the given context”, “generating…a report for the technology product, wherein the report comprises all applicable guidance rules for the technology product;”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea of managing product catalog information and facilitating a user performing research on a product which encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e. mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (i.e., legal obligations, sales/marketing activities, business relations), and mental processes (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) See MPEP 2106.04 II
The Applicant’s Specification in at least [¶ 0001] discloses companies may have multiple business teams, such as legal, supply chain, security, asset management, standards, executive, and the like, each with its own policies and processes governed by corresponding compliance groups. Often times, business teams have to engage each compliance group in their own process to identify whether or not usage of a technology product needs to be managed for compliance. Often times, business teams are responsible for having awareness of the compliance policies and processes of other business teams. Even if a business team is fully aware of the compliance policies and processes of other business teams, the business team may misinterpret the compliance policies and/or processes. In other instances, the business team may ignore the compliance policies and/or processes in order to meet deadlines (e.g., due to pressure from upper management) or for other reasons (e.g., adherence to a particularly difficult compliance policy). Without proper oversight, business teams may be non-compliant for years and plead ignorance when confronted about their non-compliance. This practice may lend itself to a culture of forgiveness that may be abused.
As such, the limitations when viewed as a whole recite sales/marketing activities and business relations relating to product research. The series of steps facilitate processes for a stakeholder to perform including requesting and generating a report to enable the stakeholder to grasp a better understanding of the requested product. Also, the claims recite mental processes for receiving known data associated with the product and evaluating the data from the request according to user defined rules or guidelines, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind with or without the use of pen and paper. Therefore, the limitations may be reasonably characterized as subject matter falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. The recited limitations in the claim(s) is/are an abstract idea.
6. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “by an integrated technology catalog system”, “executing…the logic snippet, wherein…comprises the logic snippet”, “an interface”, “a technology catalog”, “the technology catalog provided”, “by a system external”, “the integrated technology catalog system – see claim 1, “an integrated technology catalog system”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “an interface”, “a technology catalog” – see claim 12, “a computer storage medium comprising computer -executable instructions”, “a processor”, “an interface”, “a technology catalog” – see claim 18 is/are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification, i.e., generic computing components – Fig. 1. The applicant’s specification discusses the additional elements in general terms, without describing any of the particulars, such that the additional elements may be broad but reasonably construed as generic computer components being used to perform the judicial exception. As such, the additional elements merely add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional elements of: “providing…the information about the technology product”, “overlaying…data on top of the information about the technology product, wherein the data uses rule-based fields, wherein the data includes guidance rules associated with the technology product”, “outputting…the report” adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data transmission and/or output, to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The other additional elements of: “wherein the data is computed at runtime” is an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
7. 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 or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), 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) and Vanda Memo). 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.
8. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “by an integrated technology catalog system”, “executing…the logic snippet, wherein…comprises the logic snippet”, “an interface”, “a technology catalog”, “the technology catalog provided”, “by a system external”, “the integrated technology catalog system – see claim 1, “an integrated technology catalog system”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “an interface”, “a technology catalog” – see claim 12, “a computer storage medium comprising computer -executable instructions”, “a processor”, “an interface”, “a technology catalog” – see claim 18amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and does not provide an inventive concept.
The other additional element of: “providing…the information about the technology product”, “overlaying…data on top of the information about the technology product, wherein the data uses rule-based fields, wherein the data includes guidance rules associated with the technology product”, “outputting…the report” were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The OIP Techs and Versata Dev. Group, Inc court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate: “presenting offers and gathering statistics” and “arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price” includes computer functions that are well understood, routine, conventional activity. Thus at Step 2B the claims are ineligible.
10. Claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are dependents of claims 1, 12 and 18.
Claims 2, 13, and 19 recite “wherein the technology catalog comprises a plurality of technology products comprising the technology product, and wherein the technology catalog comprises a set of core attributes that uniquely identify the technology product” which further describes the type of data stored in the catalog and merely uses a catalog to store and provide data in its ordinary capacity which does not integrate the abstract idea., Claims 3, 14, and 20 recite “wherein the technology catalog further comprises a set of additional attributes of the technology product.” which further describes the type of data stored in the catalog and merely uses a catalog to store and provide data in its ordinary capacity which does not integrate the abstract idea, Claims 4 and 15 recite “wherein the interface comprises a search function.” which further describes the generic computer components recited in conjunction with the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claims 5 and 16 recite “wherein the at least one guidance rule comprises information to be provided to a user or used to trigger an activity, and wherein the information represents a best practice, a policy, or a strategy.” which further specifies the data/information recited in the judicial exception but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claims 6 and 17 recite “wherein identifying, by the integrated technology catalog system, whether the at least one guidance rule is applicable to the technology product in the given context comprises identifying, by the integrated technology catalog system, via execution of the logic snippet, whether the at least one guidance rule is applicable to the technology product in the given context.” which further specifies the data/information recited in the judicial exception but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one guidance rule is defined and managed by a stakeholder group.” which further specifies the data/information recited in the judicial exception but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 8 recites “wherein the context comprises a new use of the technology product or an ongoing use of the technology product.” which further specifies the data/information recited in the judicial exception but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 9 recites “wherein the given context comprises a time.”, Claim 10 recites “wherein the given context comprises a business functionality” which further specifies the data/information recited in the judicial exception but does not make the claim any less abstract, Claim 11 recites “wherein the request specifies a bill of materials”, which further specifies the data/information recited in the judicial exception but does not make the claim any less abstract. Accordingly, when viewed individually and in combination with the judicial exception, none of the dependent claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Applying the 2019 Revised Guidelines to the claims of the current application, they clearly do not recite an abstract idea because the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, as alleged by the Office.
Considering the Office's allegation that the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, the claims do not recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, or sales activities, as set forth as examples of certain methods of organizing human activity in the 2019 Revised Guidance. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides examples of advertising, marketing, and sales activities found to be directed to an abstract idea including structuring a sales force or marketing company, using an algorithm for determining an optimal number of visits by a business representative, and offer- based price optimization. The pending claims do not recite such advertising, marketing, or sales activities. Instead, the claims recite an integrated technology catalog system that provides, via an interface, information about a technology product from a technology catalog provided by a system external to the integrated technology catalog system and overlays data on top of the information, wherein the data includes guidance rules associated with the technology product that includes a logic snippet. Overlaying data on top of information provided by a system via an interface, as recited by claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 18, is clearly not directed to governing interpersonal exchanges such as contracts, marketing, or financial transactions. The claims further recite that the data overlayed on top of the information about the technology product from the technology catalog provided by the system external to the integrated technology catalog system uses rule-based fields and is computed at runtime, which is also clearly not directed to governing interpersonal exchanges such as contracts, marketing, or financial transactions. Additionally, the claims recite executing, by the integrated technology catalog system, the logic snippet to identify, by the integrated technology catalog system, whether at least one guidance rule is applicable to a technology product provided by a specified vendor in the given context, wherein the logic snippet indicates that any technology product provided by the specified vendor is covered by the at least one guidance rule. Executing a logic snippet to identify whether a guidance rule is applicable to a technology product clearly is not directed to governing interpersonal exchanges such as contracts, marketing, or financial transactions. Instead, this recitation of the independent claims specifies a technical mechanism (i.e., the logic snippet) for determining applicability of guidance rules. For at least these reasons, the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A - Prong One of the two-part analysis. In the instant case, the focus of the remarks provided by Applicant rely upon presenting information, i.e., overlaying data on top of information which were limitations addressed under Step 2A-Prong Two of the two part analysis and do not automatically remove the claims from falling withing the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The Applicant’s own Specification [¶ 0001, 0017-0018] evidences the focus of limitations encompasses sales/marketing activities and business relations relating to managing product catalog information for business teams to address compliance related issues. The identified limitations from claim 1 allow a vendor to specify a technology product for use and subsequent user’s to request and receive a report for the requested technology product. Thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 covers subject matter relating to sales/marketing activities and business relations which falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Considering the Office's allegation that the claims are directed to mental processes, all the recitations of the claims cannot practically be performed entirely in the human mind. In particular, the recitations of "providing, by an integrated technology catalog system, an interface through which a technology catalog can be accessed to view a technology product and evaluate the technology product in a given context, wherein the technology product is provided by a specified vendor," "providing, by the integrated technology catalog system, via the interface, the information about the technology product from the technology catalog provided by the system external to the integrated technology catalog system," "overlaying, by the integrated technology catalog system, data on top of the information about the technology product from the technology catalog provided by the system external to the integrated technology catalog system, wherein the data uses rule-based fields, wherein the data is computed at runtime, wherein the data includes guidance rules associated with the technology product, and wherein the guidance rules include a logic snippet," and "in response to the request, executing, by the integrated technology catalog system, a logic snippet to identify whether at least one guidance rule is applicable to the technology product in the given context, wherein the logic snippet indicates that any technology product provided by the specified vendor is covered by the at least one guidance rule" are all elements of the independent claims that cannot be entirely performed in the human mind. The human mind cannot provide a user interface, execute a logic snippet, or overlay data over information, where the data uses rule-based fields and is computed at runtime. Moreover, the Office omits any analysis of the execution semantics of the logic snippet as recited by the claims and described at least in paragraphs [0038]-[0044] of the current application. For at least these reasons, the claims are not directed to a mental process.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the two-part analysis. It is important to note that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer and/or by a combination of generic computer components. In the instant case, the series steps in the claim evaluate a technology product according to a request, use one or more applicable rules, then output a report according to the rules. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III) – the courts have previously held claims that recite mental processes include a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The additional elements discussed above by Applicant are computing components or machinery operating in their ordinary or normal capacity to aid in executing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Regarding the second prong of Step 2A, even if, arguendo, the claims could be interpreted to be directed to an abstract idea, which they cannot for at least the reasons given above, the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. At least at paragraph [0043], the specification describes that a logic snippet, as recited by the claims, allows guidance to be applied to all products provided by a vendor without having to enumerate each individual product. By not needing to enumerate each individual product manually, computing resources needed for processing and system storage can be reduced. For at least these reasons even if, arguendo, the claims could be interpreted to be directed to an abstract idea, the recitations of the claims clearly integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the two-part analysis. In the instant case, the Specification in at least [¶ 0043] discusses the techniques performed by a logic snippet at a high-level of generality. The Specification’s disclosure on the use of a logic snippet is nothing more than an explanation of generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea. The Applicant does not allege and the disclosure provide support the inventor invented the logic snippet. Instead, the remarks rely upon the techniques performed using the logic snippet in a conclusory manner without explaining how or providing any detail that reveals the logic snippet involves a technological solution to a technological problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a) - Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “For at least the reasons given above, claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 18, recite patent eligible subject matter that meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §101. Since claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 depend from claims 1, 12, and 18, respectfully, claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 also recite patent eligible subject matter that meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §101. Accordingly, the rejection should be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the other independent claims 12 and 18 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1, are therefore being held rejected under the same rationales. The remaining dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 were identified and the previous and present rejections explained why these limitations did not confer subject matter eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5-7, filed 27 October 2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of Kozoshnik (US 12,026,144 B1) in view of Jasper (US 2024/0020741 A1) in further view of Ogrinz (US 2015/0287111 A1) have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
C. Holst, "E-Commerce Sites Should Include Contextual Search Snippets", 2014, UX Articles, pgs. 1-12, downloaded from: https://baymard.com/blog/search-snippets
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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 at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629