DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the reply filed on 02/20/2026. Claims 1, 3, and 6-8 are pending in this Action.
Remark
In response filed 02/20/2026, claims 1, 3, and 6-8 have been amended, claims 2, 4, 5, and 9-13 have been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
The Applicant’s amendment regarding specification objection is accepted by the Examiner. Therefore, prior specification objection is withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendment regarding claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is accepted by the Examiner. Therefore, prior claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is voided.
The Applicant’s amendments regarding 35 USC 112(b) and (d) rejections are accepted by the Examiner. Therefore, prior 35 USC 112(b) and (d) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 USC 101 rejection:
The applicant alleges that:
Specifically, these claim features involve a distributed network of various servers including the centralized management server, the storage server, and the plurality of edge servers, and handling of data in the centralize database and edge database in each of the edge servers for data synchronization therebetween. See also FIGS. 1 and 3, and their corresponding descriptions in the Specification. According to such distributed network of servers and the above-mentioned functionality of the centralized management server and the edge servers, it is possible to achieve the data synchronization without direct data communication between them, and instead tailored update data uniquely associated to an edge server is delivered from the storage server, which allows for reduced or restricted data traffic between the centralized management server and the edge servers and thereby robust operation of the centralized management server without sacrificing the data management function at the centralized management server. See also [0004] in the Background and [0132]-[0134] in the Effects of the Specification.
Applicant respectfully submits that such a manner of improvement to computer functionality amounts to "significantly more" than an abstract idea, in the same manner as Amdocs, where the Federal Circuit found that "[a] distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records" was an improvement in an existing technology and thus not directed to an abstract idea. See also, 2106.05(a) I IMPROVEMENTS TO COMPUTER FUNCTIONALITY.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examine contends that features of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality and in a very conventional manner. The claimed invention includes multiple servers and databases that are used to update or synchronize data. The core of the invention is to synchronize data by creating a data distributed file for each store by a centralized server, outputting the data distributed file to a storage server, and sending the data distributed file from the storge server to edge server of each store. As, it can be seen, there is nothing “unconventional” about this network architecture and layout. Data is created in one remote server, transferred to another server over a network, and then transferred to each local servers for data synchronization.
The applicant did not provide explanation that why such a layout of general- purpose computer devices/components as recited in claim 1 is “unconventional” and more than generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The Examiner holds that such a network layout or architecture of general-purpose computer devices or components (e.g., a centralized server, a storage server, edge servers, databases, processors, and memories) to synchronize data is considered to be conventional that generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The Examiner believes that the arrangement of multiple general-purpose computer components in a generic network layout or architecture demonstrated by claim 1 is well-understood and conventional. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). See MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, the additional limitations of claim 1 (e.g., generic computer components and their layout in the network) are insignificant extra-solution activity failing to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, contrary to the applicant’s allegation, the current network architecture and communication between computer components, as recited in claim 1, is considered to be conventional that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Addition of such general-purpose computer components to the judicial exception is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity fails to improve a manner in which a computer functions or other technology. As such, the additional limitations of claim 1 individually or combined fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
In conclusion, based on above reasoning and explanation the 35 USC 101
rejection for claims 1, 3, and 6-8 for being directed to judicial exception of abstract idea is maintained.
With respect to 35 USC 102/103 rejection
Applicant's arguments with respect to newly amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection over Perez, US 2013/0332291. The new combination of Harper and Perez discloses all the limitations of amended claim 1. See below for details.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/19/2025 and 02/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the amended claimed subject matter of “centralized management server” recited in claim 1. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction is required.
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, 3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3, and 6-8 are directed to a system which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites the steps:
to create a data distribution file for each of the stores based on the update data for each of the stores; [this step recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation (BRI), it involves a concept of that could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally and manually create data based on updates]
to update a database based on the data distribution file of the store associated with the second information processing device to synchronize the edge database with the update data for the store in the updated centralized database, [this step recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves a concept that could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally and manually update a database based on data]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including
an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional steps of “to acquire, based on an update to a database that manages data of a plurality of stores, update data for each of the stores from the database;”, “to output the data distribution file created by the file creation unit so as to be stored in the storage device”, and “in a case where a data distribution file of a store associated with the second information processing device is stored in the storage device, to acquire the data distribution file of the store associated with the second information processing device.” These steps are recited at a high level of generality and based BRI, they are considered to be insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering and outputting data input. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the following computer components and the network layout recited at a high level of generality are considered to be generic computer components. The limitations of a centralized management server, a storage server connected to the centralize management sever over a network, and a plurality of edge servers connected to the storage server over the network wherein the centralized management server includes: a first storage device; and a first processor configured to: maintain a centralized database of merchandise data associated with a plurality of stores corresponding to the plurality of edge servers; …the storage server over the network, thereby causing the storage server to store the data distribution file for each of the stores, and each of the plurality of edge servers includes: a second storage device; and a second processor configured to: maintain an edge database of merchandise data unique to a store corresponding to the edge server; …wherein no direct data transmission of the update data from the centralized management server to each of the edge server is performed are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory, display and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial
decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites the additional steps of “to acquire, based on an update to a database that manages data of a plurality of stores, update data for each of the stores from the database;”, “to output the data distribution file created by the file creation unit so as to be stored in the storage device”, and “in a case where a data distribution file of a store associated with the second information processing device is stored in the storage device, to acquire the data distribution file of the store associated with the second information processing device.” These steps are recited at a high level of generality and based BRI, they are considered to be well-understood, conventional, and routine activities of data gathering and outputting data input. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the following computer components and the network layout recited at a high level of generality are considered to be generic computer components. The limitations of a centralized management server, a storage server connected to the centralize management sever over a network, and a plurality of edge servers connected to the storage server over the network wherein the centralized management server includes: a first storage device; and a first processor configured to: maintain a centralized database of merchandise data associated with a plurality of stores corresponding to the plurality of edge servers; …the storage server over the network, thereby causing the storage server to store the data distribution file for each of the stores, and each of the plurality of edge servers includes: a second storage device; and a second processor configured to: maintain an edge database of merchandise data unique to a store corresponding to the edge server; …wherein no direct data transmission of the update data from the centralized management server to each of the edge server is performed are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory, display and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial
decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 6-8,
the dependent claims also lack additional elements that sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims. The dependent claims additional steps for generic computer functions “to output…” and “to acquire…”, “to move…”, and/or “to delete…” which are considered to be insignificant extra solution and/or well-understood routine computer routines of receiving and storing data failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
These additional elements do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic
and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). In other words, the aforementioned additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al., US 2003/0163399 (Harper, hereafter) in view of Perez, US 2013/0332291.
Regarding claim 1,
Harper discloses information processing system comprising centralized management server, a storage server connected to the centralize management sever over a network, and a plurality of edge servers connected to the storage server over the network (See Harper: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 10, 12, 32, 38, 53, and 73, a central server and network servers including multiple servers (e.g., application server, search server, or web server) wherein one of these servers could corresponds to a storage server. The network servers are connected to multiple store servers (edge servers) over network/Internet) wherein the centralized management server includes: a first storage device; and a first processor configured to: maintain a centralized database of merchandise data associated with a plurality of stores corresponding to the plurality of edge servers (See Harper: at least Fig. 1, Fig. 15, para 72, 73 and 76, a central database maintain data related to a plurality of stores);
acquire, based on an update the centralized database, update data for each of the stores from the centralized database (See Harper: at least Fig. 15 and para 72, 73 and 76, retrieving updates for each store from a central database based on updates to the central database managing retail stores);
create a data distribution file for each of the stores based on the update data for each of the stores (See Harper: at least Fig. 15 and para 72, 73 and 76, creating a delta file for each store based on the updates); and
each of the plurality of edge servers includes: a second storage device; and a second processor configured to: maintain an edge database of merchandise data unique to a store corresponding to the edge server (See Harper: at least Fig. 1-2 and para 72, 73 and 76, each store includes a store server (edge server) which is unique to each store and maintains a database for the store data); and
update the edge database based on the data acquired distribution file for the store to synchronize the edge database with the update data for the store in the updated centralized database (See Harper: at least Fig. 15 and para 72, 73 and 76, the store database is updated based on received updates or delta files from central
database).
Harper further discloses a central server, a plurality of store/edge servers, and multiple other servers that could read on a storage server and sending data from one server to another server (See Harper: at least Fig. 1 and 15). Harper further discloses outputting the data distribution file for each of the stores by the central server/database to another server over the network.
However, Harper does not explicitly teach, the storage server to store the data distribution file for each of the stores, in a case where a data distribution file for the store is stored in the storage server, acquire the data distribution file for the store by sending a request to the storage server over the network, wherein no direct data transmission of the update data from the centralized management server to each of the edge server is performed.
On the other hand, Perez discloses:
“a store controller server 24” (which is a server that corresponds to a storage server) that connects to multiple store servers 32. A server (e.g., application server) output data to the store controller server 24 for storage (See Perez: at least Fig. 1, para 19, 53-54, 57-58, 61, 66-67, and 88) (the storage server to store the data distribution file for each of the stores, in a case where a data distribution file for the store is stored in the storage server).
Perez further disclose storing the files related to each store in the store controller server 24. Each store can acquire the updated data by sending a request to the store controller sever 24 over the network (See Perez: at least Fig. 1, para 53-54, 57-58, and 66-67) (acquire the data distribution file for the store by sending a request to the storage
server over the network).
The communication between the store controller server 24 (storage server) and store/edges servers is direct without sending or receiving data to or from another server (See Perez: at least Fig. 1, para 53-54, 57-58, and 66-67) (wherein no direct data transmission of the update data from the centralized management server to each of the edge server is performed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings Harper with Perez’s teaching in order to output the data distribution file for each of the stores to the storage server over the network, thereby causing the storage server to store the data distribution file for each of the stores in a case where a data distribution file for the store is stored in the storage server, acquire the data distribution file for the store by sending a request to the storage server over the network, wherein no direct data transmission of the update data from the centralized management server to each of the edge server is performed.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow another server beside the central server to execute some of the data update/synchronization functions for the stores taking some burden off of the central server causing improvement in speed and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 3,
the combination of Harper and Perez discloses wherein the second processor of each of the edge servers is further configured to output an update instruction of the data distribution file for the store corresponding to the edge server (See Harper: at least Fig. 15 and para 72, 73 and 76 and Perez: at least Fig. 1, para 19, 53-54, 57-58, 61, 66-67, and 88).
Regarding claim 6,
the combination of Harper and Perez discloses the second process of each edge servers is configured to selectively acquire a latest data distribution file for the store (See Harper: at least Fig. 15 and para 72, 73 and 76, and Perez: at least Fig. 1, para 19, 53-54, 57-58, 61, 66-67, and 88 acquiring the latest information provided by merchant provider such as media information before a release date).
Regarding claim 8,
the combination of Harper and Perez discloses the update instruction causes the storage server to delete the data distribution file for the store corresponding to the edge server (See Harper: at least Fig. 15 and para 72, 73 and 76, and Perez: at least Fig. 1, para 19, 53-54, 57-58, 61, 66-67, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that updating or modifying data includes deleting data).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al., US 2003/0163399 in view of Perez, US 2013/0332291 and further in view of Rosenberg, US 2013/0212042.
Although, the combination of Harper and Perez discloses creating a delta/updated file associated with a store in a central server, Harper does not explicitly teach the update instruction causes the storage server to move the data distribution file for the store corresponding to the edge server to a completion directory.
On the other hand, Rosenberg discloses instruction to move a file to a completed folder (See Rosenberg: at least para 812). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Harper and Perez with Rosenberg’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve functionality of the system to filter-out the files that have already been processed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
06/12/2026
Prosecution Insights