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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 6, 13, 16-17, 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 4-5, 9, 13-14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant’s admitted prior art Plaehn et al. (US 20170228815) (see IDS filed 12/18/2024) in view of Sun et al. (US 20140046899) and in further view of Hurt et al. (US 20020174040).
Regarding claim 1, Plaehn teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
for a plurality of databases, each configured to store product information associated with a plurality of products and each including a plurality of product data fields associated with a plurality of different types of the product information being stored ([0034]-[0036], [0040]),
establishing one or more mapping relationships between a first database of the plurality of databases and at least a second database of the plurality of databases, the one or more mapping relationships associating one or more first product data fields of the first database with corresponding one or more second product data fields of the second database storing a same type of the product information as the one or more first product data fields ([0038]-[0039], [0042])(see NOTE);
receiving and storing updated product information for a product, from the plurality of products, in the one or more second product data fields of the second database ([0043], [0052]);
receiving a product search request ([0072], [0142]);
determining the product, from the plurality of products, is responsive to the product search request using the first database ([0087], [0089]), the first database storing first product information for the product in the one or more first product data fields ([0077]-[0078], [0083]);
based on the one or more mapping relationships, identifying second product information stored for the product in the one or more second product data fields of the second database,
the second product information including the updated product information ([0043]) causing at least a portion of the second product information stored in the second database to be matched with the first product information stored in the first database ([0038], [0043]); and
to account for the matching or manually”) in association with the product determined using the first database within results generated for the product search request ([0093], [0137], F6-8).
Plaehn does not explicitly teach, however Sun discloses based on the one or more mapping relationships, identifying second product information stored for the product in the one or more second product data fields of the second database ([0046], [0081]-[0082]), the second product information including the updated product information ([0051]) causing at least a portion of the second product information to be inconsistent with the first product information ([0054], [0077], [0087], [0109]).
NOTE - Sun further teaches corresponding one or more second product data fields of the second database storing a same type of the product information ([0088], [0098], [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Plaehn to include identifying inconsistent with the first product information as disclosed by Sun. Doing so would increase efficiency of a user navigation and provide a timely update of the product information (Sun [0009]).
Plaehn teaches users can manually create or update mappings and matching data between a master database and a local database [0042] and the “status of the matching process can be displayed” [0034] along with change metrics and error details. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that when data is updated between two databases, such data is determined to be inconsistent (i.e. not matched).
Still, Plaehn and Sun does not explicitly teach, however Hurt discloses –
“to account for the inconsistency, causing the updated product information stored in the second database to be displayed in association with the product determined using the first database within results” ([0040] “data contained in the first database and the data contained in the second database to compare the two sets of data, to provide a comparison report … any discrepancy between the data contained in the first database and the data contained in the second database are listed, so that such discrepancy can be dealt with appropriately by store personnel to ensure that the price and item descriptions contained on a shelf label match the price and item descriptions”; [0044] “display/input processor is designed to display the discrepancies uncovered by the data reconciliation comparison performed by the first and/or second processor to give a computer-operator the opportunity to reconcile the discrepancies”; “reconciled information can then be transferred back to the first and second databases, thereby eliminating the particular discrepancy between the first and second databases”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Plaehn to account for the inconsistency as disclosed by Hurt. Doing so would eliminate a particular discrepancy between the first and second databases (Hurt [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Plaehn teaches a system comprising: a plurality of databases, each configured to store product information associated with a plurality of products and each including a plurality of product data fields associated with a plurality of different types of the product information being stored; at least one memory device storing instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions to perform operations including: establishing one or more mapping relationships between a first database of the plurality of databases and at least a second database of the plurality of databases, the one or more mapping relationships associating one or more first product data fields of the first database with corresponding one or more second product data fields of the second database storing a same type of the product information as the one or more first product data fields; receiving and storing updated product information for a product, from the plurality of products, in the one or more second product data fields of the second database; receiving a product search request; determining the product, from the plurality of products, is responsive to the product search request using the first database, the first database storing first product information for the product in the one or more first product data fields; based on the one or more mapping relationships, identifying second product information stored for the product in the one or more second product data fields of the second database, the second product information including the updated product information causing at least a portion of the second product information stored in the second database to be inconsistent with the first product information stored in the first database; and to account for the inconsistency, causing the updated product information stored in the second database to be displayed in association with the product determined using the first database within results generated for the product search request.
Claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Plaehn as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the product information associated with the plurality of products includes one or more of: a product identifier, a product description, a product image, or a scene description (Plaehn [0035], Sun [0030], [0034], [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Plaehn as modified teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the product is available for purchase (Plaehn [0071], [0083]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Plaehn as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein determining the product is available for purchase comprises determining at least one of:
the product is available from a retailer associated with the product (Plaehn F6:640, [0077]), the product is out of stock but on back order, the product is available from one or more other retailers (Plaehn [0137]), or the product has not been discontinued by a manufacturer (Plaehn [0071], [0083], F4:430f).
Regarding claim 9, Plaehn as modified teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first database and the second databases are maintained by different entities (Plaehn [0034]-[0036], [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Plaehn teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: for a plurality of databases, each configured to store product information associated with a plurality of products and each including a plurality of product data fields associated with a plurality of different types of the product information being stored, establishing one or more mapping relationships between a first database of the plurality of databases and at least a second database of the plurality of databases, the one or more mapping relationships associating one or more first product data fields of the first database with corresponding one or more second product data fields of the second database storing a same type of the product information as the one or more first product data fields; receiving and storing updated product information for a product, from the plurality of products, in the one or more second product data fields of the second database; receiving a product search request; determining the product, from the plurality of products, is responsive to the product search request using the first database, the first database storing first product information for the product in the one or more first product data fields; based on the one or more mapping relationships, identifying second product information stored for the product in the one or more second product data fields of the second database, the second product information including the updated product information causing at least a portion of the second product information stored in the second database to be inconsistent with the first product information stored in the first database; and to account for the inconsistency, causing the updated product information stored in the second database to be displayed in association with the product determined using the first database within results generated for the product search request.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 10-12, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant’s admitted prior art Plaehn as modified and in further view of Vaschillo et al. (US 2005/0050068).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Plaehn as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the established one or more mapping relationships between the first database and the second database include a dependency of the one or more first product data fields of the first database to the one or more second product data fields of the second database (Plaehn [0042], [0056], [0058]).
Plaehn does not explicitly teach, however Vaschillo discloses established one or more mapping relationships between the first database and the second database include a dependency ([0231], [0236]) of the one or more first data fields of the first database to the one or more second data fields of the second database ([0064], [0131]-[0134], [0141], [0151], [0229]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Plaehn to include a dependency of the fields as disclosed by Vaschillo. Doing so enables parallel navigation in different data structures (Vaschillo [0062]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Plaehn as modified does not explicitly teach, however Vaschillo discloses the method and the system, further comprising:
generating a product schema for one or more of the first database or the second database ([0034], [0046], [0068]); and modifying a database structure of the one or more of the first database or the second database to include the product schema ([0049], [0051], [0054], [0224]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Plaehn to generating a product schema as disclosed by Vaschillo. Doing so enables parallel navigation in different data structures (Vaschillo [0062]).
Regarding claim 11, Plaehn as modified teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the product schema includes at least one large class and at least one successive narrower class for each product class (Sun [0004], Vaschillo [0064], [0132]).
Regarding claim 12, Plaehn as modified teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein modifying the database structure of the one or more of the first database or the second database to include the product schema further comprises:
associating a time relevancy parameter with the plurality of products (Plaehn [0067], [0091] “notify a web server that new data is available”, [0095], F7:740, Sun [0033], [0058] “updated product node (i.e., newly-added property information is added”, Vaschillo [0092] see "xsd:dateTime", [0184]).
Claim(s) 6-8, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant’s admitted prior art Plaehn as modified and in further view of Pope et al. (US 10762511).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Plaehn as modified does not explicitly teach, however Pope discloses the method and the system, wherein the product is one of a subset of products, from the plurality of products, determined to be responsive to the product search request, and the method further comprises:
determining one or more of the subset of products other than the product are unavailable for purchase; and
providing an indication (C7L14-16, C18L:25-29) of the one or more of the unavailable subset of products in association with the results generated for the product search request (C20L15-26, 47-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Plaehn to exclude unavailable products as disclosed by Pope. Doing so would allow for efficient searching of multiple sources (Pope C9L65-66).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Plaehn as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the product is one of a subset of products, from the plurality of products, determined to be responsive to the product search request, and the method further comprises: ranking the subset of products based on one or more relevancy criteria (Pope C19L52-58); and based on the ranking, ordering the subset of products within the results generated for the product search request (Pope C19L52-67).
Regarding claim 8, Plaehn as modified teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the one or more relevancy criteria include one or more of: a number of times the respective product of the subset of products has been identified in response to a search (Pope C19L15-24), or an amount of commercial activity associated with content including the product (Pope C18L36-38, 60-63, Sun [0058]-[0059]).
Claim(s) 7-8, 11-12, 18 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant’s admitted prior art Plaehn as modified and in further view of applicant’s admitted prior art Sicora et al. (US 10684738) (see IDS filed 12/18/2024).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Plaehn as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the product is one of a subset of products, from the plurality of products, determined to be responsive to the product search request, and the method further comprises:
ranking the subset of products based on one or more relevancy criteria (C110L65-67, C113L24-27, C114L1-4); and based on the ranking, ordering the subset of products within the results generated for the product search request (C110L65-67, C113L24-27, C114L1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Plaehn to include number of times the product has been identified as disclosed by Sicora. Doing so would allow a user to readily view and interact with results with minimal additional inputs to locate relevant content (Sicora C114L43-45).
NOTE the applicant’s admitted prior art - England et al. (US 20120290446) likewise disclose claim 7 and 18 in [0194]-[0214] and further obviate the teachings of Plaehn.
Regarding claim 8, Plaehn as modified teaches the computer-implemented method as disclosed above, Sicora additionally teaches, wherein the one or more relevancy criteria (C114L18-40) include one or more of: a number of times the respective product of the subset of products has been identified in response to a search, or an amount of commercial activity associated with content including the product (C102L20-55).
NOTE the applicant’s admitted prior art - England et al. (US 20120290446) likewise disclose claim 8 in [0194]-[0214] and further obviate the teachings of Plaehn.
Regarding claim 11, Plaehn as modified teaches the computer-implemented method as disclosed above, Sicora additionally teaches wherein the product schema includes at least one large class and at least one successive narrower class for each product class (C22L22L1-3, C102L9-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Plaehn to include classes and subclasses as disclosed by Sicora. Doing so would allow a user to readily view and interact with results with minimal additional inputs to locate relevant content (Sicora C114L43-45).
Regarding claim 12, Plaehn as modified teaches the computer-implemented method ss disclosed above, Sicora additionally teaches, wherein modifying the database structure of the one or more of the first database or the second database to include the product schema further comprises: associating a time relevancy parameter with the plurality of products (C15L5-7, C48L5-26, 41-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Plaehn to include a time relevancy parameter as disclosed by Sicora. Doing so would allow a user to readily view and interact with results with minimal additional inputs to locate relevant content (Sicora C114L43-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 in regard to the presently amended claims have been fully considered and are addressed in the updated rejections to the claims above.
Please note that the present amendments are a very well-known functionality and is also disclosed by –
Homier et a. (US 20070027782) - “reconciling identified discrepancies, each reconciling operation corresponding to a type of discrepancy and associated with: a user interface including guidance to a user for reconciling the discrepancy; and user interface elements adapted to receive data from the user for reconciling the discrepancy” (see Claim 1) and
Charyk et a. (US 9477737) – “access a plurality of remote databases in order to identify data inconsistencies between the remote databases and provide user interfaces to a user in order to initiate communication via one or more APIs to certain remote databases indicating updates that reconcile said data inconsistencies” (Abstract).
Conclusion
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 POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights