DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
The claims filed on 4/27/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent.
Claims 1, 9, 16, and 26 are currently amended.
Claims 7-8, 20-22, and 24 are previously presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 103
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of the current amendments.
35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recite an inventive concept because they recite additional elements that improve a search engine functionality, including "receiving a photo...and a query", "updating said client's client profile...", "receiving a description...", "automatically searching said client profile database...", and "automatically sending an electronic message...".
The argument is not persuasive. Applicant's argued limitations largely fall under the abstract idea itself, as delineated by the rejection. The additional elements drawn to performing the limitations by a processor are not indicative of an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). With regards to the processor implementation, the features are both claimed and described at a high level of generality in a manner which does not convey an improvement in search engine functionality to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to the problem is accomplished. Here, the additional limitations are merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding dependent claims 7-8, 20-22, 24, and 26, Applicant’s arguments rely upon the arguments presented with regards to the independent claims and are similarly unpersuasive.
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, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 are directed to a method or system, which are within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 9 and method Claim 16. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. (Previously Presented) A method comprising:
a processor automatically performing the steps of:
storing a plurality of client profiles at a client profile database of a clienteling computer system, each of said plurality of client profiles comprising: a client identification information, a family member information, a clothing size information, and a purchase history information;
receiving, at said clienteling computer system, a photo of an item provided by a client and a query about said item;
updating said client’s client profile at said client profile database to include said photo of said item and said query about said item;
receiving a description of a new item;
automatically searching said client profile database to identify any client profiles with said query about said item that relate to said new item;
automatically sending an electronic message to a retailer’s mobile computing device, said electronic message comprising: a contact information for said identified client profiles, said photo of said item, said query about said item, and an identifier for said new item.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, set forth or describe “certain methods of organizing human activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite storing client profiles, receiving a new item for sale, searching the client profiles for profiles that relate to the new item, and sending contact information for the identified profiles to a retailer. These limitations describe a commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor, client profile database, clienteling computer system, and retailer mobile computing device (claims 1, 9, and 16) is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 9 and 16 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: processor, client profile database, clienteling computer system, and retailer mobile computing device (claims 1, 9, and 16). The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0034] about implementation using general purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 9, and 16 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 7-8, 20-22, 24, and 26 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 16 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1, 7-9, 16, 20-22, 24, and 26 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farsedakis (US 2010/0153278 A1) discloses a website used by a seller to find a universe of buyers, and used by a buyer to be introduced to a seller without investing much time. The website in-takes a user's description of his target item with agreeable price, which gets posted on the website. When a seller encounters a posting for which he wants to be introduced to the poster, he has the system report his interest to the poster and once the poster grants permission, the seller can be introduced to, and directly email, telephone, etc. the poster. The provision of the introduction can be conditioned upon payment by the seller or otherwise. An Identity Scoring system outputs a score indicating the likelihood that the opposite party actually is who claims to be.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights