DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the original application filed on 05/09/2025.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 05/09/2025, 10/02/2025, and 10/24/2025 have been reviewed and considered.
Priority
The current Application claims priority from Foreign Patent Application No. IN202441036759 filed 05/09/2024. Therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 05/09/2024.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 13 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-scraping [retrieving], from a webpage of a third-party marketplace, a first set of text-based data samples and a first set of image-based data samples that pertain to a product listing;
-requesting, from a management portal of the third-party marketplace, a second set of text-based data samples and a second set of image-based data samples that pertain to the product listing;
-responsive to the requesting, receiving the second set of text-based data samples and the second set of image-based data samples;
-retrieving, from an internal data storage system, a third set of text-based data samples and a third set of image-based data samples that pertain to the product listing;
-generating hashes of the respective first, second, and third sets of image-based data samples;
-comparing the hashes with respect to one another and outputting binary results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the hashes;
-extracting attributes from the first, second, and third sets of text-based data samples based on predetermined comparison criteria;
-comparing the attributes with respect to one another and outputting additional binary results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the respective ones of the attribute data; and
-executing a[n] data re-syndication algorithm based on at least one disagreement of either the compared hashes or the compared attribute data
The above limitations recite the concept of comparing product listing data from multiple sources. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of responsive to the requesting, receiving the second set of text-based data samples and the second set of image-based data samples; generating hashes of the respective first, second, and third sets of image-based data samples; comparing the hashes with respect to one another and outputting binary results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the hashes; extracting attributes from the first, second, and third sets of text-based data samples based on predetermined comparison criteria; comparing the attributes with respect to one another and outputting additional binary results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the respective ones of the attribute data are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “receiving,” “generating,” “comparing,” “extracting,” and “comparing” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of scraping [retrieving], from a webpage of a third-party marketplace, a first set of text-based data samples and a first set of image-based data samples that pertain to a product listing; requesting, from a management portal of the third-party marketplace, a second set of text-based data samples and a second set of image-based data samples that pertain to the product listing; retrieving, from an internal data storage system, a third set of text-based data samples and a third set of image-based data samples that pertain to the product listing; and executing a[n] data re-syndication algorithm based on at least one disagreement of either the compared hashes or the compared attribute data are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the sets of data samples are scraped from a webpage, that the requesting is from a management portal, that the internal data storage is an internal data storage system, and that the algorithm is a data re-syndication algorithm, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “scraping,” “webpage,” “management portal,” “an internal data storage system,” and “data re-syndication algorithm,” language, “requesting,” “retrieving,” and “executing” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-scraping, from a webpage of a third-party marketplace, a first set of text-based data samples and a first set of image-based data samples that pertain to a product listing;
-requesting, from a management portal of the third-party marketplace, a second set of text-based data samples and a second set of image-based data samples that pertain to the product listing;
-responsive to the requesting, receiving the second set of text-based data samples and the second set of image-based data samples;
-retrieving, from an internal data storage system, a third set of text-based data samples and a third set of image-based data samples that pertain to the product listing;
-generating hashes of the respective first, second, and third sets of image-based data samples;
-comparing the hashes with respect to one another and outputting binary results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the hashes;
-extracting attributes from the first, second, and third sets of text-based data samples based on predetermined comparison criteria;
-comparing the attributes with respect to one another and outputting additional binary results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the respective ones of the attribute data; and
-executing a data re-syndication algorithm based on at least one disagreement of either the compared hashes or the compared attribute data
The additional elements of claim 13 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0037] of Applicant’s specification – “The processor 210 may be of any of a wide variety of types, including microprocessors with x86-based architecture or other architecture known in the art.” Specifically, the additional elements of a computer-implemented method, scraping data, a webpage, a management portal, an internal data storage system, and a data re-syndication algorithm, are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of scraping data, requesting data, receiving data, retrieving data, generating data, comparing data, extracting data, and executing data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 13, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 1 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 13. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer-implemented method, a webpage, a management portal, an internal data storage system, and a data re-syndication algorithm, however, claim 1 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 13 indicated above.
Claim 19 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 13. Examiner notes that claim 19 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, program instructions, a processor, a webpage, a management portal, an internal data storage system, and a data re-syndication algorithm, however, claim 19 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 13 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 19 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-13, 14-18, and 20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions in that they encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities, as well as, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, in regards to dependent claims 3-6, in that they encompass following rules or instructions. Dependent claims 4-9 and 17-18 do not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 2-3, 10-12, 14-16, and 20 recite the additional elements of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) of image, importing, the data re-syndication algorithm, natural language processing, a user interface, the management portal, the internal data storage system, and the processor, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-13, 14-18, and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-13, 14-18, and 20 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 13, and 19, dependent claims 2-13, 14-18, and 20 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. comparing product listing data from multiple sources) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
In the present application, claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention. Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art as follows:
Claims 1-12 and 19-20 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Tavanaei et al. (US 12,524,997 B1), Oh et al. (US 2020/0104869 A1), Luo et al. (US 10,637,826 B1), and Hossain et al. (US 2021/0056567 A1). Tavanaei teaches receiving, via a management portal of the third-party marketplace, data that pertains to the product listing (Tavanaei, see at least: Col. 17 Ln. 30-39, Col. 5 Ln. 16-34 and Col. 8 Ln. 48-50); retrieving, from an internal data storage system, a third set of text-based data samples and a third set of image-based data samples that pertain to the product listing (Tavanaei, see at least: Col. 17 Ln. 30-39 and Col. 9 Ln. 8-14); comparing the vectors with respect to one another and outputting results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the vectors (Tavanaei, see at least: Col. 17 Ln. 30-39, Col. 17 Ln. 63-67 & Col 18 Ln. 1-10, Col. 20 Ln. 26-32, and Col. 15 Ln. 14-23); extracting attributes from the text-based data samples based on predetermined comparison criteria (Tavanaei, see at least: Col 18 Ln. 63-67 & Col 19 Ln. 1-4 and Col. 21 Ln. 44-67 & Col. 22 Ln. 1-3); comparing the attributes with respect to one another and outputting additional results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the respective ones of the attributes (Tavanaei, see at least: Col. 15 Ln. 14-23); and executing a data re-syndication based on at least one disagreement of either the compared binary hashes or the compared attributes (Tavanaei, see at least: Col. 2 Ln. 51-65, Col. 10 Ln. 23-29, Col. 19 Ln. 60-65 and Col. 5 Ln. 26-30).
Tavanaei is deficient in a number of ways. As written, the claims require receiving, via a webpage of a third-party marketplace, a first set of text-based data samples and a first set of image-based data samples that pertain to a product listing; receiving, via a management portal of the third-party marketplace, a second set of text-based data samples and a second set of image-based data samples; generating binary hashes of the respective first, second, and third sets of image-based data samples; comparing the binary hashes with respect to one another and outputting binary results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the binary hashes; the text-based data being the first, second, and third sets of text-based data; the additional results being additional binary results; and executing a data re-syndication algorithm.
Regarding Oh, Oh teaches receiving, via a webpage of a third-party marketplace, a first set of text-based data samples and a first set of image-based data samples that pertain to a product listing (Oh, see at least: [0018] and [0026]); receiving, via a management portal of the third-party marketplace, a second set of text-based data samples and a second set of image-based data samples that pertain to the product listing (Oh, see at least: [0018] and [0026]); and the first, second, and third sets of text-based data (Oh, see at least: [0018]).
Though disclosing these features, Oh does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Luo, Luo teaches generating binary hashes of the respective first, second, and third sets of image-based data samples (Luo, see at least: Col. 13 Ln. 37-51, Col. 14 Ln. 24-27 and Col. 14 Ln. 51-53); comparing the binary hashes with respect to one another and outputting binary results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the binary hashes (Luo, see at least: Col. 17 Ln. 27-43); and outputting binary results (Luo, see at least: Col. 17 Ln. 27-43).
Though disclosing these features, Luo does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Hossain, Hossain teaches executing a data re-syndication algorithm (Hossain, see at least: [0089]).
Though disclosing these features, Hossain does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of Tavanaei, Oh, Luo, and Hossain, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
Tavanaei, Oh, Luo, and Hossain, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Cited NPL reference U (cited 09/16/2026 on PTO-892) teaches utilizing binary hashing to determine matching images, but does not teach or suggest the recited limitations.
L. -Y. Duan, J. Lin, Z. Wang, T. Huang and W. Gao, "Weighted Component Hashing of Binary Aggregated Descriptors for Fast Visual Search," in IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 828-842, June 2015, doi: 10.1109/TMM.2015.2419973.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 13-18 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Tavanaei et al. (US 12,524,997 B1), Oh et al. (US 2020/0104869 A1), Luo et al. (US 10,637,826 B1), and Hossain et al. (US 2021/0056567 A1). Tavanaei teaches receiving, from a management portal of the third-party marketplace, data that pertains to the product listing (Tavanaei, see at least: Col. 17 Ln. 30-39, Col. 5 Ln. 16-34, and Col. 8 Ln. 48-50); retrieving, from an internal data storage system, a third set of text-based data samples and a third set of image-based data samples that pertain to the product listing (Tavanaei, see at least: Col. 17 Ln. 30-39 and Col. 9 Ln. 8-14); comparing the vectors with respect to one another and outputting results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the vectors (Tavanaei, see at least: Col. 17 Ln. 30-39, Col. 20 Ln. 26-32, and Col. 15 Ln. 14-23); extracting attributes from the text-based data samples based on predetermined comparison criteria (Tavanaei, see at least: Col 18 Ln. 63-67 & Col 19 Ln. 1-4 and Col. 21 Ln. 44-67 & Col. 22 Ln. 1-3); comparing the attributes with respect to one another and outputting additional results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the respective ones of the attribute data (Tavanaei, see at least: Col. 15 Ln. 14-23); and executing a data re-syndication based on at least one disagreement of either the compared hashes or the compared attribute data (Tavanaei, see at least: Col. 2 Ln. 51-65, Col. 10 Ln. 23-29, Col. 19 Ln. 60-65 and Col. 5 Ln. 26-30).
Tavanaei is deficient in a number of ways. As written, the claims require scraping, from a webpage of a third-party marketplace, a first set of text-based data samples and a first set of image-based data samples that pertain to a product listing; requesting, from a management portal of the third-party marketplace, a second set of text-based data samples and a second set of image-based data samples; responsive to the requesting, receiving the second set of text-based data samples and the second set of image-based data samples; generating hashes of the respective first, second, and third sets of image-based data samples; comparing the hashes with respect to one another and outputting binary results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the hashes; the text-based data samples being the first, second, and third sets of text-based data samples; the additional results being additional binary results; and executing a data re-syndication algorithm.
Regarding Oh, Oh teaches scraping, from a webpage of a third-party marketplace, a first set of text-based data samples and a first set of image-based data samples that pertain to a product listing (Oh, see at least: [0018] and [0026]); requesting, from a management portal of the third-party marketplace, a second set of text-based data samples and a second set of image-based data samples that pertain to the product listing (Oh, see at least: [0018] and [0026]); responsive to the requesting, receiving the second set of text-based data samples and the second set of image-based data samples (Oh, see at least: [0026]); and the first, second, and third sets of text-based data samples (Oh, see at least: [0018]).
Though disclosing these features, Oh does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Luo, Luo teaches generating hashes of the respective first, second, and third sets of image-based data samples (Luo, see at least: Col. 13 Ln. 37-51, Col. 14 Ln. 24-27 and Col. 14 Ln. 51-53); comparing the hashes with respect to one another and outputting binary results based, at least in part, on agreement, or disagreement, of the hashes (Luo, see at least: Col. 17 Ln. 27-43); and outputting binary results (Luo, see at least: Col. 17 Ln. 27-43).
Though disclosing these features, Luo does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Hossain, Hossain teaches executing a data re-syndication algorithm (Hossain, see at least: [0089]).
Though disclosing these features, Hossain does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of Tavanaei, Oh, Luo, and Hossain, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
Tavanaei, Oh, Luo, and Hossain, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Cited NPL reference U (cited 09/16/2026 on PTO-892) teaches utilizing binary hashing to determine matching images, but does not teach or suggest the recited limitations.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Hensley et al. (US 2024/0069911 A1) teaches synchronizing container image lists.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights