DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment on 07/20/2026. Claims 1, 4-11 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 12/28/2023.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11 relate to machine claims; claim 7 is process claim; and, claim 8 is manufacture claim. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Claim 1 (and claims 7, 8) recites the following abstract idea:
1 is configured to
extract, from a product information registration database in which a plurality of pieces of detailed information each containing a piece of outline information of an item are registered, a plurality of pieces of the outline information, wherein each piece of the detailed information further contains copy state information indicating whether the piece of detailed information was generated by copying, and a piece of reference information (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356),
when a first piece of the outline information in a first piece of the detailed information corresponding to a first item matches a second piece of the outline information in a second piece of the detailed information corresponding to a second item, specify a different portion that differentiates the first piece of the detailed information and the second piece of the detailed information (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) Voter Verified, comparing data, and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis)), and
wherein the at least one processor is configured to, when specifying with reference to the copy state information that one of the two pieces of the detailed information that match in terms of the extracted piece of the outline information is due to a copy of the other of the two pieces of the detailed information, use the other as the first piece of the detailed information and use the one as the second piece of the detailed information (e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)A-C)),
further extract another predetermined portion of each of the plurality of pieces of the detailed information that are registered in the product information registration database and that correspond to a plurality of the items, for use as the piece of the reference information (e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D)),
output, to at least one terminal of the one or more terminals, second difference information together with a list of listing the extracted plurality of pieces of the outline information, the second difference information being information of the different portion in the second piece of the detailed information (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(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)).
present the list in which each piece of the outline information is associated with a piece of the reference information extracted from a piece of the detailed information from which the piece of the outline information is extracted (e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) citing Credit Acceptance, “presenting the financial packages to the user”), and
when the second difference information is contained in a second piece of the reference information extracted from the second piece of the detailed information, highlight in the list the second difference information contained in the second piece of the reference information (e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) manipulating the results (A) iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721).
When these abstract idea are viewed alone and in ordered combination, claim 1 (and 7, 8) are found to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Claim 1 (and 7, 8) are not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Exemplary claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
A product information management server connectable via a network to one or more terminals, the product information management server comprising: at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to [perform abstract idea]. These broadly recited additional elements are used as tools to implement the abstract idea, e.g. “apply it" rationale. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
A product information registration database. Broadly recited additional element used as tool to implement the abstract idea, e.g. “apply it" rationale. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
At least one terminal of the one or more terminals. Broadly recited additional element used as tool to implement the abstract idea, e.g. “apply it" rationale. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these additional elements are not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B – Claim 1 (and 7, 8) is not found to recite significantly more. The additional element analysis of Step 2A Prong 2 is equally applied to Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For the extracting limitation of claim 1 – found to be WURC at v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
For the when limitation, see iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
For the output limitation, found to be WURC at e.g. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these limitations are found to include WURC, and be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent claims – Claim 4 includes abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(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). Claim 5 includes abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 6 recites more abstract idea. MPPE 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). Claim 9 relates to more abstract idea of manipulating the results, shown above. Claim 10-11 are more abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0026136 to Rathod et al. (“Rathod”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0109767 to Shpanya (“Shpanya”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0039326 to Stankiewicz et al. (“Stankiewicz”).
WIth regard to claim 1, 7, 8, Rathod discloses the claimed product information management server connectable via a network to one or more terminals, the product information management server (see Rathod [0011-21]) comprising:
at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is (see Rathod [0017-21]) configured to
extract, from a product information registration database in which a plurality of pieces of detailed information each containing a piece of outline information of an item are registered, a plurality of pieces of the outline information (See Rathod [0003-4] [0010] showing that each file includes records, attributes, and attribute values, and that a mapping file specifies one or more selected attributes for comparison. Rathod discloses standardizing by removing unselected attributes, which is strong teaching of extracting selected outline fields from broader record information; Rathod published claim 1; Rathod does not disclose the product information registration database; Shpanya teaches at e.g. [0073, 76, 77, 86-88] a sellers catalog of products and stored product attributes, the system matches records to more complete product data and updates records with missing attributes such as UPC, description image preview, it also teaches product identifiers such as UPC, SKU, ISBN, and specific descriptions), wherein each piece of the detailed information further contains copy state information indicating whether the piece of detailed information was generated by copying, and a piece of reference information (Rathod teaches detecting duplicates having the same key value, but does not disclose the copy state information; for reference information, see Rathod teachings where records contain multiple attributes and attribute values, a selected subset can be used for comparison and reporting; for the copy state information, see Stankiewicz throughout Stankiewicz such as [0028] identify the text block and/or the generated risk levels for each copy-paste passage);
when a first piece of the outline information in a first piece of the detailed information corresponding to a first item matches a second piece of the outline information in a second piece of the detailed information corresponding to a second item (See Rathod, abstract, [0003] disclosing receiving a mapping file with a key, then comparing each record in the first file to a corresponding record in the second file, “the corresponding record determined according to the key”; Rathod at [0024-25], [0038-45], published claim 1), specify a different portion that differentiates the first piece of the detailed information and the second piece of the detailed information (Rathod e.g. [0003-4] teaches that the mapping file identifies selected attributes for comparison and that only those selected attributes are used, while other attributes can be removed. Rathod then determines which selected attributes are unmatched, that is a strong disclosure of specifying a differing portion that is less than all of the record information), and
wherein the at least one processor is configured to, when specifying with reference to the copy state information that one of the two pieces of the detailed information that match in terms of the extracted piece of the outline information is due to a copy of the other of the two pieces of the detailed information, use the other as the first piece of the detailed information and use the one as the second piece of the detailed information (This is not taught by Rathod. See Stankiewicz, [0081-83] Figs. 5A-5B, [0024])
further extract another predetermined portion of each of the plurality of pieces of the detailed information that are registered in the product information registration database and that correspond to a plurality of the items, for use as the piece of the reference information (see Rathod [0003-4], claim 1, 9, mapping file identifies selected attributes and the system may remove non-selected attributes, supporting extracting predetermined portions of records; Shpanya product records include multiple types of fields, and the system parses uploaded product data and stores/enriches associated attributes. )
output, to at least one terminal of the one or more terminals, second difference information together with a list of listing the extracted plurality of pieces of the outline information (Rathod discloses communicating a report indicating the result of comparing files, and the GUI display reports Rathod [0014, 24]), the second difference information being information of the different portion in the second piece of the detailed information (Rathod [0003], [0010], [0024], and published claim 6, 14, 19, Rathod determines unmatched attributes and communicates a report indicating the comparison result. Rathod also explains that a report may include a description of mismatched attribute values, for examiner where on file lists one owner and the second file lists a second owner; Rathod does not teach a product list showing extracted product outline fields with difference information in a seller product management interface. Shpanya cures this at Fig. 2 (Users catalog and sales metric) Fig. 20 (catalogue overlapping, competitive landscape, assortment report, and [0073-76, 99-100]. Shpanya teaches a seller catalogue and product/user interfaces, including list/grid-style presentation of products and metrics. The figures show product interfaces and list/table views, the text also discusses the sellers catalog and catalogue comparisons.).
present the list in which each piece of the outline information is associated with a piece of the reference information extracted from a piece of the detailed information from which the piece of the outline information is extracted (Rathod associates attributes and attribute values with each records, and its reports may present record identifiers together with unmatched column values. See Rathod [0003] [0024] [0043-45]; Shpanya presents each product in a list or grid together with corresponding product fields, thumbnails, price, availability, and other attributes from that product’s stored data, Shpanya [0073] [0077] [0096-98]), and
when the second difference information is contained in a second piece of the reference information extracted from the second piece of the detailed information, highlight in the list the second difference information contained in the second piece of the reference information (Rathod reports differing values but does not disclose highlighting the differing value within a list entry. See Rathod [0014, 24, 43-45]. See Shpanya at Fig. 6 and [0098] where a checkmark identifies a match and X to identify a discarded item. For the highlighting, see Stankiewicz at Fig. 12, [0114] “View documents with issues highlighted” [0041] [0071] [0091] [0117-122] claim 8. In other words, Shpanya supplies the product-list and product-field environment. Rathod identifies which corresponding product attribute differs. Stankiewicz teaches visually highlighting the identified probelatic portion directly within the copied/second records displayed content. For claim 9-10, see Stankiewicz at Fig. 12. For claim 11, see Stankiewicz at [0005-7] first and second document known and relationship known, where first document is parent and second is child of that document as it was created from it with copy and paste. Stankiewicz also stores a copy paste flag for a passage and distinguishes the previously-generated source document from the new destination document Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rathod to include such highlighting, and other features like the copy-paste identifications above, as this is commonly used, as described by Stankiewicz, “confirming that a copy-paste passage is correct (i.e., the copy-paste passage does not contain any inaccuracies) and/or user input modifying at least a portion of a copy-paste passage to correct any inaccuracies.” Stankieqicz, [0026] and throughout, where making the identification of the copy and paste, subsequent analysis, and highlighting is all performed in order to improve accuracy in such actions and make sure that the risk level is low, not high, as indicated in Stankiewicz.).
Rathod and Shpanya both address common technical product of making better use of structured data by matching corresponding records and acting on detected differences in a computerized commercial environment. From the above teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathod’s record-comparison and discrepancy-identification techniques into Shpanya’s seller product-catalog system so that matched product records could be reliable validated and any mismatched product attributes could be identified and reported automatically, rather than relying on more manual and less structured review. This would predictably improve the accuracy and usefulness of Shpanya’s catalog/product matching, improving Shpanya’s ability to identify and present differences between matched product information records in an automated and efficient manner. Rathod, [0004] [0019] [0034] [0038] etc. Shpanya at e.g. [0009-10].
With regard to claim 4, see Rathod published claim 6, [0024] teaching reporting both the first-record value and the corresponding second-record value for the differing attribute. Rathod does not show the product list of seller aspect. As shown above, Shpanya teaches the seller product/list presentation context. See motivation above.
With regard to claim 5, Rathod teaches mismatch reporting, duplicate reporting, and statistical/detailed reporting, but does not appear to teach that when the processor cannot specify a different portion, it instead outputs a warning info. Shpanya cures this deficiency by teaching manual approval/near match resolution for example, near matches can be manually approved, and user assisted matching may be used when exact matching is not confirmed. If Rathod’s system cannot specify the match/difference, human review may be invoked, through an indication to the user. See motivation to combine above.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod, Shpanya, Stankiewicz and U.S. pat. Pub. No. 2007/0030538 to Quaeler (“Quealer”).
With regard to claim 6, Rathod teaches duplicate record and a duplicate report, as duplicates imply two entries having identical or effectively duplicate content. Rathod does not teach a displayed list with m-th and n-th positions, warning information, or warning stated. See Shpanya at Fig. 6, [0096-98]. Quealer teaches the remaining limitations at e.g. [0103] [0117-118] [0171], and [0122] [150-151] [0230] [0245] items are designated by different color and/or visual indicator based on the nature of their relationship to the selected item. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathod to include such features of Quaeler, where the advantage of such combination is shown in Qualer at [0117] and [0003-6].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the added limitations. These arguments are rendered moot in light of the new reference Stankiewicz. As for the arguments under 101, the examiner has updated the 101 rejection above to address the newly added limitations, and does not find them to pass 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 The struck through recitations will be addressed in Step 2A Prong 2 and/or Step 2B.
Prosecution Insights