DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed 3/10/2026. Claims 88, 90-98 and 100-107 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant’s IDS have been considered. There is no claim to foreign priority.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to the Double Patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, based on the Terminal Disclaimer filed. The Double Patenting rejections of claims 88 and 98 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. More specifically, applicant argues…
“In rejecting claim 89, the Examiner refers to the SKU number described in Swanson as a language agnostic attribute ID and considers Swanson to teach that the SKU number is specific to the e-catalogue. The Examiner additionally refers to the 'attribute ID name/value association' of Munro, although the Examiner does not specify where or how Munro teaches the attribute ID name or value to be platform specific.
It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner's interpretation of the SKU number of Swanson as a language agnostic attribute ID is not clear, particularly given that the Examiner acknowledges in the rejection of claim 88, from which claim 89 depends, that Swanson does not teach a language agnostic attribute ID and instead turns to Munro as describing this feature of the claims.
Furthermore, even should the SKU number of Swanson be considered somewhat analogues to a language agnostic attribute ID, Swanson does not teach or suggest that the SKU number is e-catalogue specific. The portions of Swanson referenced by the Examiner in rejecting claim 89 relate to taking the content of the SKU entry and outputting the content as a database in the catalogue scheme (see col. 19, lines 45 - 67). The SKU number in Swanson is thus not itself catalogue specific, but rather used to create a database within the catalogue.“
The Examiner notes that the applicant states, “even should the SKU number of Swanson be considered somewhat analogues to a language agnostic attribute ID, Swanson does not teach or suggest that the SKU number is e-catalogue specific.”
The Examiner notes, the SKU number is an attribute ID. An SKU is a unique identifier assigned by a business to each product or product variant, wherein each distinct version of a product-such as size, color, or style-receives its own SKU.
The Examiner further notes, the applicant discusses “The SKU number in Swanson is thus not itself catalogue specific, but rather used to create a database within the catalogue.” This argument attributes no weight to the current claims. The applicant does not claim anything regarding catalogue specific identifiers. The applicant claims the ID to be specific to said electronic commerce platform. The SKU in Swanson, is used in eCommerce, and is specific to the eCommerce business, by definition of an SKU (see Swanson current and previously cited sections, see also abstract, wherein his E-Catalog with corresponding SKUs, for that specific business in order to connect or facilitate interactions, buying/selling, etc., as defined by a business platform). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. This is not novel, nor will this argument lead to advancing prosecution, based on the teachings of the prior art.
The Examiner notes that SKUs (Stock Keeping Unit), are usually denoted by alpha-numeric codes, but may take the form of many different data sets, such as ASCII letters and digits, or when the SKUs act as machine-readable codes rather than human-readable text, etc. Therefore, the Examiner notes that Swanson’s SKU, although it is not explicitly stated as language agnostic, may take on that interpretation, however, Munro provides the explicit supplemental information which is unambiguously language agnostic.
The applicant further argues, “The Examiner additionally refers to the 'attribute ID name/value association' of Munro, although the Examiner does not specify where or how Munro teaches the attribute ID name or value to be platform specific.”
However, the Examiner notes that Monroe is not relied upon to teach the attribute ID name or value to be platform specific. This is clearly evident in the SKU business eCommerce ID. However, Monroe explicitly teaches the language agnostic component in paragraphs [0032-0042] and Fig. 4, which detail his language independent symbols for the table, see paragraph [0032]…“the attribute IDs are expressed as language independent symbols, such as numbers. Similarly, the language-specific look-up tables map a column of attribute values to a column of attribute value IDs. While numbers are used as language independent symbols in the example discussed in FIG. 4, any language independent symbol could be used to represent the various attribute names and attribute values. For example, in an alternative embodiment, punctuation marks or coded groupings of characters could be used to represent the various attribute names and attribute values.”
Therefore, every element of the applicant’s claim is taught by the combination of references, despite any of the applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection. Therefore, the applicant’s corresponding arguments, regarding the independent claims and dependent claims, which are based on the above arguments, are not persuasive.
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) 88-90, 92-100, and 102-107 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (US 7,299,202) in view of Munro (US 2016/0071181).
As per claim 88, Swanson teaches a method of transforming data comprising:
receiving unstructured product data describing attributes of an article, said unstructured product data comprising attribute values, which are assignable to a multiplicity of structured product attributes (see his abstract, product attributes discussion, Fig. 4-all items 182-186, see, also specifically Fig. 4 items 182-185-his unstructured content, and structured content, standardization and e-catalog generation, the C.3 lines 4-22-his catalog, attributes, categories data types, architecture and format requirements);
automatically converting said unstructured product data to structured product data in a form suitable for export to a specific electronic commerce platform (ibid-his automatic standardization of the unstructured product data, C.3 line 45-C.4 line 20-his automatic reconfiguration as standardization of the product information, C.13 lines 19-51-his transformation of unstructured data to e-catalog, customized standardized file formats, see also Fig. 4 item 110), said structured product data comprising, for each attribute of said article, an attribute value associated with said attribute and at least one of a language specific attribute name of said attribute (C.23 line 63-C.24 line 57, Fig. 8, see his attribute values, names and ID) and a language [agnostic] attribute ID associated with said attribute,
said language [agnostic] attribute ID being specific to said electronic commerce platform (ibid-Swanson, C.19 lines 1-67, his SKU number, as a language agnostic attribute ID, specific to the e-catalog, see his catalog authoring, SKU and custom data for that ecommerce/e-catalog, however as the SKU is not inherently and explicitly language agnostic, although it can be, the Examiner subsequently cited Munro in order to explicitly state using a language independent symbol for identification),
and
exporting said structured product data to the specific electronic commerce platform in said form suitable for export (ibid-Fig. 4, see also C.21-lines 52-65-his distribution of the structured content to the e-catalog).
Swanson lacks explicitly teaching that which Munro teaches,
said structured product data comprising, for each attribute of said article, an attribute value associated with said attribute and at least one of a language specific attribute name of said attribute and a language agnostic attribute ID associated with said attribute (paragraphs [0032-0042] and Fig. 4, his language independent symbols for the table, as his language agnostic IDs per attribute/value).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Swanson and Munro to combine the prior art element of converting unstructured product data into structured product data as taught by Swanson with having language agnostic IDs as taught by Munro as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be ease of translation in any language via the language independent look-up table (ibid-Munro paragraphs [0042]).
As per claims 90 and 100, Swanson with Munro make obvious the method according to claim 88 and wherein said unstructured product data and said structured product data are in the same language (ibid-see Swanson, Figs. 8 and 11, and claim 88 above, unstructured and structured product data, in English).
As per claims 92 and 102, Swanson with Munro make obvious the method according to claim 88 and wherein said automatically converting comprises automatically converting measurements to units of measure applicable to said specific electronic commerce platform (ibid, Swanson, C.6 lines 10-end of page, his “intelligent product catalog”, transforming and regionalization of all currency and units of measure into appropriate languages and formats, for the specific catalog).
As per claims 93 and 103, Swanson with Munro make obvious the method according to claim 88 and wherein said automatically converting comprises automatically converting prices to a currency applicable to said specific electronic commerce platform (ibid, Swanson, C.6 lines 10-end of page, his “intelligent product catalog”, transforming and regionalization of all currency and units of measure into appropriate languages and formats, for the specific catalog).
As per claims 94 and 104, Swanson with Munro make obvious the method according to claim 88 and wherein said automatically converting comprises utilizing a pricing policy applicable to said specific electronic commerce platform (ibid, Swanson, C.6 lines 10-end of page, his “intelligent product catalog”, transforming and regionalization of all currency and units of measure, an pricing, into appropriate languages and formats, for the specific catalog, see also-his pricing, for attributes and products, C.9 lines 20-38-his “procurement attributes such as: price, availability” etc., as pricing policies, as explained with respect to the transformation of information and specific catalog data).
As per claims 95 and 105, Swanson with Munro make obvious the method according to claim 88 and wherein said automatically converting said unstructured product data to structured product data in a form suitable for export comprises:
analyzing said unstructured product data (ibid, Swanson, see unstructured product data conversion discussion, Fig. 4, C.10 line 52-C.11 line 14-as analysis, content translation, formatting, editing and converting of the documents, including the analysis); and
extracting, from said unstructured product data, unstructured product- specific attribute values, which are assignable to corresponding ones of said multiplicity of structured product attributes (ibid-his scheme application, generation of the structured data, including structured product attributes, assigned via the scheming, to the listing/database, C.8 lines 35-end of page, see attributes as extracted from the unstructured content, and stored in an intelligent database).
As per claims 96 and 106, Swanson with Munro make obvious the method according to claim 95 and wherein said automatically converting said unstructured product data to structured product data in a form suitable for export also comprises, subsequent to said extracting, assigning each of said unstructured product-specific attribute values to a corresponding one of said structured product attributes as at least one of a value and a value ID (ibid, Swanson-see claim 95, scheming discussion-see Fig. 8, his scheme comprising for all attributes, attribute values and value identification).
As per claims 97 and 107, Swanson with Munro make obvious the method according to claim 88 and wherein said receiving said unstructured product data comprises automatically retrieving said unstructured product data from an electronic commerce platform different from said specific electronic commerce platform (ibid-see claim 88, unstructured product data discussion, see also Swanson, C.13, lines 35-50, C.15 lines 1-18-his subscription and interval data retrieval from the suppliers/partners as the different commerce platform before distribution to another commerce platform, see his retrieval agreement, frequency of dynamic retrieval discussion).
As per claim 98, claim 98 sets forth limitations similar to claim 88 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein the system is deemed to embody the method, such that Swanson with Munro make obvious a system for transforming data comprising (see his Fig. 4, his Content translation system):
a data receptacle, receiving unstructured product data describing attributes of an article, said unstructured product data comprising attribute values, which are assignable to a multiplicity of structured product attributes (ibid-see claim 88, corresponding and similar limitation, Fig. 4-his item receiving the unstructured data, C.14 line 52-C.15 line 64-his “system” and unstructured receiving data);
a data transformer, automatically converting said unstructured product data to structured product data in a form suitable for export to a specific electronic commerce platform, said structured product data comprising, for each attribute of said article, an attribute value associated with said attribute and at least one of a language specific attribute name of said attribute and a language-agnostic attribute ID associated with said attribute (ibid-see claim 88, corresponding and similar limitation, Fig. 4-his content translation system transforming and translating thus, converting unstructured product data, Swanson claim 88, system discussion), said language agnostic attribute ID being specific to said electronic commerce platform (ibid-see claim 88, corresponding and similar limitation); and
a marketplace listing exporter, exporting said structured product data to said specific electronic commerce platform in said form suitable for export (ibid-see claim 88, export discussion, Swanson, Fig.4, C.13 lines 35-50, C.1 lines 35-53, C.3 lines 4-22).
Claim(s) 91 and 101 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson (US 7,299,202) in view of Munro in view of Platek (US 2012/0109786).
As per claims 91 and 101, Swanson with Munro make obvious the method according to claim 88 and wherein said [unstructured] product data and said structured product data are in the different languages (ibid-Munro Fig. 4, his language-specific tables in different languages, as the structured languages for product data, and his Fig. 6, input language, see Swanson’s unstructured product data, see claim 88, in a first language).
Platek explicitly teaches wherein said unstructured product data and said structured product data are in the different languages (Fig. 1B, items A and B, his English unstructured data and Spanish structured data)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Swanson and Munro to combine the prior art element of converting unstructured product data into structured product data as taught by Swanson with having language agnostic IDs as taught by Munro as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be translation of an input, as unstructured (ibid-see Swanson/Platek) in a different language for retrieval of language-specific information (ibid-Munro paragraphs [0042], see also Platek, Fig. 1B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 LAMONT M SPOONER whose telephone number is (571)272-7613. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at (571)272-5551. 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.
/LAMONT M SPOONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
5/6/2026
Prosecution Insights