`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CONINJERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 13-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`F[L]NG DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`14/607,823
`
`01/28/2015
`
`MARK UNAK
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`——
`CU-100218
`9771
`
`”4°”
`”9"
`“mm”
`mm 1p LAW, LLc —
`77 West Washington Street
`WEINER» ARIELLE E
`Suite 800
`
`Chicago, IL 60602
`
`ART UNIT
`3684
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`1 1/16/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`fleneriplawidocketing@cardinal-ip.com
`zflener@flenerip1aw.com
`info@fleneriplaw.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`017709 A0110” Summary
`
`Application No.
`14/607,823
`
`Examiner
`ARIELLE E WEINER
`
`Applicant(s)
`UNAK et al.
`
`Art Unit
`3684
`
`AIA Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE ofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 01/28/2015
`.
`D A declaration(s)laffidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`2a)[:| This action is FINAL.
`2b)
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)|:| An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)I:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparfe Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims"
`
`5). Claim(s) 1-21 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:| Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`7). Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected.
`
`8)[:| Claim(s)
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:| Claim(s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http:llwww.usptogovlpatents/init events/pphlindexjsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)l:| The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 28 January 2015 islare: a). accepted or b)I:| objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.1 21 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)|:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or ( ).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)|:l All
`
`b)|:l Some**
`
`c)|:l None of the:
`
`1.|:|
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.|:|
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.I:l Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTOISBIOSa andfor PTOISBIOBb)
`2)
`Paper No(s)lMail Date 05/29/2015 .
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) |:| Interview Summary (PTO—413)
`Paper No(s)fMail Date
`4) D Other'
`
`PTOL-325 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper NoJMail Date 20171102
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA 0r 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.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This action is in reply to the original application filed on 01/28/2015.
`
`Claims 1-21 are rejected.
`
`Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10]
`
`Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims (10 not fall within at
`
`least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
`
`Claims 8-14 are directed towards the non-statutory subject matter of signals (See at least
`
`paragraph [0058] of the specification describing that the computer readable media may embody
`
`signals and/or carrier waves). A claim that can be read so broadly as to include statutory and
`
`nonstatutory subject matter (i.e., signals) must be amended to limit the claim to a statutory
`
`practical application. In other words, if the specification discloses a practical application of a
`
`section 101 judicial exception, but the claim is broader than the disclosure such that it does not
`
`require a practical application, then the claim must be rejected. MPEP 2106 IV C.2.(2)a. Signals
`
`are not Within any statutory category and are held to be non-statutory subject matter. MPEP
`
`2106.01.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 3
`
`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 1-21 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.
`
`When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined
`
`whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the
`
`statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial
`
`exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must
`
`additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If
`
`an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must
`
`be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
`
`Examples of abstract ideas include fiindamental economic practices; certain methods of
`
`organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice
`
`Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, at al., 573 US.
`
`(2014).
`
`The computer-implemented method, as claimed in claims 1-7, is directed to a process.
`
`The computer program product residing on a computer readable medium, as claimed in claims 8-
`
`14, is directed to signals per se. The computing system, as claimed in claims 15-21, is directed to
`
`a machine. As such some of the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of
`
`the Alice flowchart; however, claims 1-21 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract
`
`idea).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 4
`
`Addressing the claims under Step 2A, the claims are held to be directed to concepts
`
`similar to those found to be abstract, either as outlined in the 2014 IEG/July 2015 Update to
`
`Subject matter eligibility, or, as compared to certain decisions rendered by the
`
`courts. Representative claim 1 is rejected due to the abstract idea of creating a catalog using
`
`information from another catalog. Specifically claim 1 requires identifying a first product offered
`
`by a product distributor within an electronic distributor catalog for inclusion within a master
`
`catalog, wherein the first product is identified using one or more product attributes; comparing
`
`the format of the one or more product attributes for the first product with a desired format for one
`
`or more catalog attributes utilized within the master catalog; and transforming the format of the
`
`one or more product attributes for the first product into the desired format for one or more
`
`catalog attributes utilized within the master catalog. The limitations of claim 1 represent concepts
`
`similar to those found by courts to be abstract.
`
`The concepts recited in claim 1 represent “certain methods of organizing human activity”
`
`as they are concepts relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing
`
`relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behaviors; and
`
`managing human mental activity [see USPTO July 2015 Update to Subject Matter Eligibility,
`
`section III (B)]. Specifically, representative claim 1 classifies and stores data in an organized
`
`manner. In reciting these concepts, claim 1 recites concepts similar to those found to be abstract
`
`in TLI Comms in which the courts found concepts related to classifying and storing digital
`
`images in an organized manner to be abstract [see TLI Communications LLC v. AVAutomotive
`
`LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2016)].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 5
`
`Additionally, the concepts recited in claim 1 also represent "an idea 'of itself" as they
`
`represent an idea standing alone such as an uninstantiated concept, plan or scheme, [see USPTO
`
`July 2015 Update to Subject Matter Eligibility, section III (C)]. These concepts are similar to
`
`those analyzed in Electric Power Group in which the courts found concepts related to collecting
`
`information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to be
`
`abstract [see Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016)]. Additionally, these concepts are similar to those analyzed in Ameranth in which the
`
`courts found concepts relating to generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the
`
`second menu to another location to be abstract [see Apple v. Ameram‘h, 842 F.3d 1229, 120
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2016)].
`
`Thus, under step 2A, of the Alice/Mayo framework, the claims are held to be directed to
`
`concepts similar to those found to be abstract either by the courts or as outlined in the 2014
`
`IEG/July 2015 Update to Subject Matter Eligibility.
`
`Under Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
`
`to significantly more than the judicial exception.
`
`The examiner acknowledges the additional elements of the claim (Le. a computing
`
`device). Though reciting additional elements, the additional elements represent generic
`
`computing elements well-known in the industry. Moreover, these generic computing components
`
`operate using well-understood, routine, and conventional filnctions (see July 2015
`
`update, section IV, p. 7) such as:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 6
`
`0
`
`receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g. identifying a first product offered by a
`
`product distributor within an electronic distributor catalog for inclusion within a
`
`master catalog, wherein the first product is identified using one or more product
`
`attributes; comparing the format of the one or more product attributes for the first
`
`product with a desired format for one or more catalog attributes utilized within the
`
`master catalog; and transforming the format of the one or more product attributes
`
`for the first product into the desired format for one or more catalog attributes
`
`utilized within the master catalog)
`
`0
`
`extracting data (e. g. identifying a first product offered by a product distributor
`
`within an electronic distributor catalog for inclusion within a master catalog,
`
`wherein the first product is identified using one or more product attributes)
`
`The claim limitations, representative claim 1, in addition to the abstract idea includes a
`
`computing device. Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements merely act as
`
`an attempt to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, thus attempting to generally link
`
`the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment e. g. computing networks
`
`and/or the internet. Additionally, the additional limitations recited in the claims are recited in a
`
`broad manner specified at a high level of generality. Claim 1 recites fimctions without specifying
`
`even arguably new physical components or specifying processes defined other than by the
`
`functions themselves. The claimed functions can be carried out in existing computers long in use,
`
`no new machinery being necessary. Claim 1 merely assumes the availability of physical
`
`components for collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 7
`
`collection and analysis [see Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)].
`
`As an additional consideration, the additional limitations recited in system claim 1 do not
`
`amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself since the additional elements are merely
`
`recited in a generic manner and operate using well-understood, routine and conventional
`
`fimctions [see USPTO July 2015 Update to Subject Matter Eligibility, section IV, pg. 7]. [see
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
`
`Even considered as an ordered combination, the additional limitations of system claim 1
`
`do not add anything further than when looking at the elements taken individually. As a whole,
`
`the claim simply recites an abstract idea and instructions to “apply it” on generic computer
`
`specified at a high level of generality.
`
`Thus, under Step 2B, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in
`
`representative claim 1 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such
`
`that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
`
`The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 8
`
`and 15 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis
`
`as claim 1 shown above.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 8
`
`Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent
`
`ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations are directed to data
`
`gathering and data processing (i.e. insignificant pre-solution activity) and therefore fail to
`
`establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. As such, the additional recited
`
`limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an
`
`abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete. Therefore claims 1-21
`
`are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis
`
`for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ,
`
`(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or
`otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for
`patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the
`case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the
`claimed invention.
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being
`
`anticipated by Wilmsen et a] (US 6,578,030 B1), hereinafter Wilmsen.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Wilmsen discloses a computer-implemented method, executed on a
`
`computing device, comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 9
`
`- identifi/ing a first product oflered by a product distributor within an electronic
`
`distributor catalogfor inclusion within a master catalog, wherein thefirst product is identified
`
`using one or more product attributes; (Wilmsen, see at least: selecting (i.e. identifying) items
`
`from a first catalog based on desired categories or attributes (i.e. using product attributes)
`
`“initially items are selected for conversion. The selection of the items can be made on the basis
`
`of a search through the first catalog. Typically all items will be selected, however, the selection
`
`will depend on the intended use of the catalog. For example, if the purpose of conversion is to
`
`accommodate a reclassification of items in the first catalog, then only the reclassified items need
`
`to be selected. Items can be selected based on a search of the catalog for all items of a particular
`
`manufacturer, all items having a particular range of SKUs (Stock Keeping Units) or based on a
`
`search for any desired categories or attributes” Col. 3 Ln. 53-63 where the first catalog is the
`
`electronic distributor catalog (in this case a distributor of fasteners) “a new catalog which
`
`presents information about items in a new way is desired either to meet certain business
`
`requirements or to satisfy unique tastes. For example, a building supply wholesaler and an
`
`aircraft manufacturer may purchase the same fasteners from the same supplier but have different
`
`requirements for finding and ordering the fasteners" Col. 3 Ln. 35 -45)
`
`- comparing the format of the one or more product attributes for thefirst product with a
`
`desiredformatfor one or more catalog attributes utilized within the master catalog; (Wilmsen,
`
`see at least: each selected item is checked against a table to go from the first catalog format to the
`
`second catalog format (i.e. comparing the format) “Each selected item is then checked against a
`
`table that contains the conversion information to go from the first catalog format to the second
`
`catalog format 34. It is presently preferred that the conversion be performed on each item, one
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 10
`
`item at a time, however, the conversion can be performed on attributes or categories and the list
`
`organized by attribute or category” Col. 4 Ln. 5-11 where the conversion changes the value for
`
`an attribute of an item to a different value of the same attribute (i.e. comparing format of
`
`attribute) “The default conversion can take many forms, differing in complexity. A
`
`straightforward conversion is to change the value for an attribute or category for a particular item
`
`to a different value for the same attribute or category for the item. For example, the first catalog
`
`may have a category called “Writing Instruments” and the second catalog may use “Pens”
`
`instead” Col. 4 Ln. 29-35)
`
`- transforming theformat ofthe one or more product attributes for thefirst product into
`
`the desiredformatfor one or more catalog attributes utilized within the master catalog
`
`(Wilmsen, see at least: a straightforward conversion changes (i.e. transforms) the value for an
`
`attribute or category (i.e. attribute) for a particular item (i.e. product) to a different value (i.e.
`
`desired format) “The default conversion can take many forms, differing in complexity. A
`
`straightforward conversion is to change the value for an attribute or category for a particular item
`
`to a different value for the same attribute or category for the item. For example, the first catalog
`
`may have a category called “Writing Instruments” and the second catalog may use “Pens”
`
`instead. This is a matter of user preference and the present invention, through the mapping tables,
`
`can accommodate many different style preferences. The rule then maps all the category values
`
`that are “Writing Instruments” into “Pens.” The same principle applies when converting the
`
`catalog into a different language” Col. 4 Ln. 29-42)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 11
`
`Regarding claim 2, Wilmsen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
`
`Wilmsen flirther discloses:
`
`-wherein transforming theformat ofthe one or more product attributes for thefirst
`
`product into the desiredformatfor one or more catalog attributes utilized within the master
`
`catalog includes: convertingfrom a first unit ofmeasurement utilized by the one or more product
`
`attributes for thefirst product into a second unit ofmeasurement utilized by the one or more
`
`catalog attributes utilized within the master catalog (Wilmsen, see at least: the mapping table
`
`can include converting numerical values to new units of measurement (i.e. convert first unit of
`
`measurement to second unit of measurement) “Additional operations can be added to the
`
`mapping table to accommodate more sophisticated changes. For example, if a first catalog
`
`requires different units of measure from a second catalog, e.g., inches and centimeters, then it is
`
`not enough to change the designation of the unit of measure, the numerical value must be
`
`converted, e.g. the value in inches must be multiplied by 2.54. Accordingly, the table sets forth
`
`not only the mapping of the units designator (in) to another designator (cm.) but also the
`
`conversion rule for converting the numerical value to the new units of measure” Col. 5 Ln. 38-
`
`47)
`
`Regarding claim 4, Wilmsen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
`
`Wilmsen further discloses:
`
`- wherein transforming the format of the one or more product attributes for thefirst
`
`product into the desiredformatfor one or more catalog attributes utilized within the master
`
`catalog includes: convertingfrom a first nomenclature utilized by the one or more product
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 12
`
`attributes for thefirst product into a second nomenclature utilized by the one or more catalog
`
`attributes utilized within the master catalog (Wilmsen, see at least: the table provides mapping
`
`rules for conversions of abbreviations such as “ea.” (i.e. first nomenclature) being mapped to
`
`“each” (i.e. second nomenclature) “The table Will provide mapping rules for all of the
`
`conversions for all anticipated values of the relevant attribute. The same principle also applies to
`
`the use of abbreviations and the use of case. The table for the item may require that “cc.” be
`
`mapped to “CC,” that “ea.” be mapped to “each,” or that “Lbs.” be mapped either to “Pd.” or to
`
`“Net Pounds”” Col. 4 Ln. 47-50)
`
`Regarding claim 5, Wilmsen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
`
`Wilmsen further discloses:
`
`- identiifi/ing additional products afiered by the product distributor within the electronic
`
`distributor catalogfor inclusion within the master catalog, wherein the additional products are
`
`each identified using one or more product attributes; (Wilmsen, see at least: selecting (i.e.
`
`identifying) items from a first catalog based on desired categories or attributes (i.e. using product
`
`attributes) and all items are typically selected (i.e. additional products) “initially items are
`
`selected for conversion. The selection of the items can be made on the basis of a search through
`
`the first catalog. Typically all items Will be selected, however, the selection Will depend on the
`
`intended use of the catalog. For example, if the purpose of conversion is to accommodate a
`
`reclassification of items in the first catalog, then only the reclassified items need to be selected.
`
`Items can be selected based on a search of the catalog for all items of a particular manufacturer,
`
`all items having a particular range of SKUs (Stock Keeping Units) or based on a search for any
`
`desired categories or attributes” Col. 3 Ln. 53-63 Where the first catalog is the electronic
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 13
`
`distributor catalog (in this case a distributor of fasteners) “a new catalog which presents
`
`information about items in a new way is desired either to meet certain business requirements or
`
`to satisfy unique tastes. For example, a building supply wholesaler and an aircraft manufacturer
`
`may purchase the same fasteners from the same supplier but have different requirements for
`
`finding and ordering the fasteners" Col. 3 Ln. 35-45)
`
`- comparing the format of each ofthe one or more product attributes for the additional
`
`products with a desiredformatfor one or more catalog attributes utilized within the master
`
`catalog; (Wilmsen, see at least: each selected item is checked against a table to go from the first
`
`catalog format to the second catalog format (i.e. comparing the format) “Each selected item is
`
`then checked against a table that contains the conversion information to go from the first catalog
`
`format to the second catalog format 34. It is presently preferred that the conversion be performed
`
`on each item, one item at a time, however, the conversion can be performed on attributes or
`
`categories and the list organized by attribute or category” Col. 4 Ln. 5-11 where the conversion
`
`changes the value for an attribute of an item to a different value of the same attribute (i.e.
`
`comparing format of attribute) “The default conversion can take many forms, differing in
`
`complexity. A straightforward conversion is to change the value for an attribute or category for a
`
`particular item to a different value for the same attribute or category for the item. For example,
`
`the first catalog may have a category called “Writing Instruments” and the second catalog may
`
`use “Pens” instead” Col. 4 Ln. 29-35 and all items are typically selected (i.e. additional products)
`
`“initially items are selected for conversion. The selection of the items can be made on the basis
`
`of a search through the first catalog. Typically all items will be selected, however, the selection
`
`will depend on the intended use of the catalog” Col. 3 Ln. 53-55)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 14
`
`- transforming theformat ofeach ofthe one or more product attributes for the additional
`
`products into the desiredformatfor one or more catalog attributes utilized within the master
`
`catalog (Wilmsen, see at least: a straightforward conversion changes (i.e. transforms) the value
`
`for an attribute or category (i.e. attribute) for a particular item (i.e. product) to a different value
`
`(i.e. desired format) “The default conversion can take many forms, differing in complexity. A
`
`straightforward conversion is to change the value for an attribute or category for a particular item
`
`to a different value for the same attribute or category for the item. For example, the first catalog
`
`may have a category called “Writing Instruments” and the second catalog may use “Pens”
`
`instead. This is a matter of user preference and the present invention, through the mapping tables,
`
`can accommodate many different style preferences. The rule then maps all the category values
`
`that are “Writing Instruments” into “Pens.” The same principle applies when converting the
`
`catalog into a different language” Col. 4 Ln. 29-42 where each selected item is checked against a
`
`conversion table “Each selected item is then checked against a table that contains the conversion
`
`information to go from the first catalog format to the second catalog format 34. It is presently
`
`preferred that the conversion be performed on each item, one item at a time, however, the
`
`conversion can be performed on attributes or categories and the list organized by attribute or
`
`category” Col. 4 Ln. 5-11 and all items are typically selected (i.e. additional products) “initially
`
`items are selected for conversion. The selection of the items can be made on the basis of a search
`
`through the first catalog. Typically all items will be selected, however, the selection will depend
`
`on the intended use of the catalog” Col. 3 Ln. 53-55)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 15
`
`Regarding claim 6, Wilmsen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
`
`Wilmsen further discloses:
`
`- wherein the electronic distributor catalog is provided in a format chosen from the group
`
`consisting of: a spreadsheetformat and XML format (Wilmsen, see at least: "The catalog
`
`constitutes a list of items and an associated description of each item. The catalog can be in the
`
`format of a database or any other electronic format, such as a spreadsheet or tex " Col. 2 Ln. 44-
`
`47)
`
`Regarding claim 7, Wilmsen discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
`
`Wilmsen further discloses:
`
`- wherein the master catalog is an online catalog (Wilmsen, see at least: "process is
`
`preferably used to create one electronic catalog from an existing electronic catalog" Col 3 Ln.
`
`33—35)
`
`Claims 8-9 and 11-14 recite limitations directed towards a computer program product
`
`residing on a computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon Which,
`
`when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Wilmsen, see at least:
`
`“The computer system comprises a bus or other communication means 1 for communicating
`
`information, and a processing means such as a processor 2 coupled with the bus 1 for processing
`
`information. The computer system further comprises a random access memory (RAM) or other
`
`dynamic storage device 4 (referred to as main memory), coupled to the bus 1 for storing
`
`information and instructions to be executed by the processor” Col. 8 Ln. 55-63). The limitations
`
`recited in claims 8-9 and 11-14 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1-2 and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 16
`
`4-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons as set forth above in claims 1-
`
`2 and 4-7, respectively.
`
`Claims 15-16 and 18-21 recite limitations directed towards a computing system
`
`including a processor and memory (Wilmsen, see at least: “The computer system comprises a
`
`bus or other communication means 1 for communicating information, and a processing means
`
`such as a processor 2 coupled with the bus 1 for processing information. The computer system
`
`further comprises a random access memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage device 4 (referred
`
`to as main memory), coupled to the bus 1 for storing information and instructions to be executed
`
`by the processor” Col. 8 Ln. 5 5 -63). The limitations recited in claims 15-16 and 18-21 are
`
`parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1-2 and 4-7, respectively, and are therefore
`
`rejected for those same reasons as set forth above in claims 1-2 and 4-7, respectively.
`
`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.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham 12. John Deere Ca, 383 US. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/607,823
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 17
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.