DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed September 15, 2025. Applicant’s September 15th amendment amended 6-18. Claims 6-28 are pending, with claims 26-28 being withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention and claims 1-5 being previously canceled.
Claims 6 and 18 are the independent claims.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 15, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 6-25 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g. not within one of the three defined categories of abstract ideas; not directed to organizing human activities that involve sales activities or commercial interaction; claims directed to improvements to a product device for providing a unique price to a customer - performed by the device and not organizing human activity; Remarks: Pages 3-5); claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. improvements to purchase/product device, additional elements, claims as a whole; Remarks: 6, 7); improve the functioning of a computer (e.g. apparatus/computer-implemented method to provide a unique price to a customer; improvements to a purchase device to enable a unique price to be provided to the customer; Remarks: Pages 7-9) and the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea (e.g. considered as a whole; Remarks: Pages 10-12).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicants disclose invention and claimed invention, representative independent claims 6 and 18, is directed to determining a price for a consumer product (i.e. product pricing; Title: “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING UNIQUE PRODUCT PRICING FOR A CUSTOMER”; Claim 6: “A purchase device for providing a unique price to a customer…calculate…a unique selling price…..transmit a response to the customer device including the unique selling price.” – emphasis added) wherein product pricing is method of organizing human activity – a fundamental economic activity in the subcategories of commercial transactions/interactions or sales. While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process/principle of product pricing (i.e. improvement in the abstract idea itself), the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart)).
That the claims recite generic computer elements (e.g. server, purchase device, etc.; Specification Paragraphs 16, 21) each used for their designed for, well-known, routine and conventional purposes of receiving, processing and sending data. Applicant does not claim nor disclose improving the functionality to any of the recited or disclosed generic hardware (e.g. resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart), the claims merely utilize the generic computing elements as a conduit for the abstract idea – as tools for performing the abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 6: The step of receive a request identifying a product select by the customer for purchase may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of request information from a server associated with a product based on the request may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of transmit person identifying information may be performed in the human mind using observation and judgement of data. The step of determine an initial selling price may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement. The step of generate a pricing index may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement. The step of send at least personal identifying information may be performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation. The step of receive a monetary amount of a subsidy may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of calculate a unique selling price for the customer may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement. The step of transmit a response to the purchase device and consumer device including the unique selling price may be performed in the human mind using judgement and opinion.
Additionally, the steps of receive a request, request information, transmit identifying information, send at least personal identifying information, receive a monetary amount are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering). The steps of transmit and send a response to the purchase device including the unique selling price and sending a response to the customer device including the service device recite insignificant post solution activity (data output). Reevaluating the steps of receive a request, request information, transmit identifying information, send at least personal identifying information, receive a monetary amount which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, send a response to the purchase device including the unique selling price and sending a response to the customer device including the service device these limitations are mere data gathering and data output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving data and sending/transmitting data which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further the recitation of resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart) used for their conventional, routine, well-known purposes of receiving, processing and sending/transmitting data does not negate the mental nature of these claim limitations as the claims merely use the one or more generic computing device as a tool to perform an otherwise mental process. Further the resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart) each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/device/machine.
Other than the recitation of a resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart) are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, generic purchase device (Specification Paragraph 16: “Such portable payment device, purchase card, or point of purchase device may furthermore include a smartphone, credit card, push-button payment system, or click channel that performs, initiates, connects, or completes a transaction for a sale, order, refund, automated clearinghouse, or any such merchant transaction.”. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. More specifically the recitation and utilization of a resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart) (generic computing elements used for their well-known, conventional and routine purposes of receiving, processing and providing data) does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the generic computing elements are merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or improve the functioning of a computer, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – product pricing – more specifically the claims calculate and transmit/send a ‘unique’ (customer specific) product price using generic computing elements (e.g. server, processor, user device, purchase device, etc.). While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of product pricing, they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Further Applicant’s disclosure lacks any discussion of improving the performance of the underlying technological environment. The generic computing elements (e.g. processor, storage medium, purchase device, server, etc.) merely ‘execute’ the abstract idea and is used merely a tool. The claims are not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit.
Applicant’s specification does not disclose any teachings related to improving computer performance or improving the performance of another technology or technical field. Providing unique product pricing to a consumer is not a technology much alone represent an improvement to a technology. Providing a unique product price to a consumer/customer is not a technical field much alone represent an improvement to another technical field. Providing a unique product price to a consumer/customer does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Providing unique pricing to a consumer/customer is at best a business solution to a well-known business problem/practice/principle – what price to charge customers for a product.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51-52, 55. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other 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(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55 ("Prong Two").
In view of the 2019 Revised Guidance, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart). These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and sending data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s product pricing in the general field of business management and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart)) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in claims beyond the abstract idea are the resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart),” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims improve the functioning of a computer itself, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above the claims are directed to providing a solution to a well-known, common and routine fundamental economic practice of determining a price to charge a customer for a product. This is clearly a business solution to a business problem (what to price to charge customers for a product). The claims, as discussed above, recite a series of method steps wherein some of those method steps are performed by well-known, well-understood, conventional and routine technological elements/components (e.g. purchase device, server, processor, store register, etc.) wherein each of the technological elements is used for its inherent/designed for/well-understood purpose (e.g. processor/server performs a mathematical operation of determining an initial selling price or generating a pricing index, etc.). None of the recited technological elements/components is improved in any way.
The claims are directed to calculating a ‘unique’ price for a product (customer specific product pricing) without significantly more. The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of product pricing. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (server, purchase device; Specification Paragraph 21) are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), wherein the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure or claimed invention discloses an improvement in the function of any of the claimed technical elements (e.g. processor, server, etc.).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the customer (who is a person) and a remote entity (which is a business or person) and additional limitations of generic computer elements: server, purchase device, customer device, processor, processor-readable medium storing instructions (Specification: Paragraph 21). These generic computing components are merely used to receive, process and send data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's product pricing in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited server, purchase device," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the 2019 Revised Guidance, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim is incorrectly labeled Currently Amendment instead of Previously Presented. Appropriate 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 6-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 6 and 18, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of product pricing (Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING UNIQUE PRODUCT PRICING FOR A CUSTOMER; Claim 6: “A purchase device for providing a unique price to a customer…..transmit a response to the customer device including the unique selling price.”). This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, product pricing (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed calculating and sending/transmitting a unique (product) price to a customer (i.e. sending data), wherein product pricing is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities or commercial interactions. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Further all of the steps of “receive”, “request”, “transmit”, “determine”, “generate”, “send”, “receive”, “calculate”, “send” and “transmit” (Claim 6) and “receiving”, “requesting”, “determining”, “generating”, “sending”, “receiving”, “calculating” and “transmitting” (Claim 18) recite functions of the product pricing are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 6 and 18 appears to be to calculate and send/transmit a unique price for a product to a customer/user (human).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the customer/user (who is a person) and a remote entity (which is a business or person) and additional limitations of generic computer elements: resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart). These generic computing components are merely used to obtain/receive and process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's product pricing in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 6-25 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart)," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the 2019 Revised Guidance, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental process, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of determine an initial selling price and calculate a unique selling price all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the step(s) of receive a request from a customer device, request information from a server, send personal identifying information and determining a monetary amount of a subsidy are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The steps of transmit at least the personal identifying information to a remote entity, send a response to the purchase device and transmit a response to the customer device are directed to insignificant post solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer/server/device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart) are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and sending/transmitting data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The 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 claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receive, request, send and transmit steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applications specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 7-17 and 19-25, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of product pricing and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 6 and 18.
Claim 7 and 19 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the personal identifying information is associated with ONE or more of costs of living, standards of living, local standards, aggregate standards, family status, marital status, amount of time, time of day, availability, per diem, income level, tax bracket, ZIP code, extended ZIP, volume of transactions, profit margin, charitable contributions OR combinations thereof (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by debiting the monetary amount from the monetary account (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the product information to ONE of incentives, rewards, gifts, cash amounts, loyalty rewards OR combinations thereof (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 10 and 21 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the price pricing subsidy to ONE of an insurance plan, actuary data, cost plan, coverage plan, health account, Medicare, Medicaid, social security OR combinations thereof (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 11 and 22 further limit the abstract idea by limiting generating the price index using ONE of aggregate standards, biometrics, health records, socio-economic statistics, demographics, housing metrics OR combinations thereof (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 12 and 23 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the price subsidy as being provided by at least ONE of manufacturer, merchant, wholesaler, producer, retailer, supplier OR combinations thereof (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 13 and 24 further limit the abstract idea by limiting determining initial selling price ONE of manufacturer information, raw materials, wholesaler, supplier, producer, merchant, retailer, seller, tariffs, transportation, import, service provide OR combinations thereof (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea by adjusting the initial selling price or unique selling price based on product family, brand OR category (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea by adjusting the initial or unique selling price is greater than or less than a price set by a retailer (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 16and 25 further limit the abstract idea wherein the unique or initial selling price is adjusted based on a variable associated with the product family, brand or category, wherein the variable is determined by the customer of a retailer (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 17 further limits the abstract idea by limiting computing devices to ONE of a payment system, cloud system, point of sale system, point of purchase system, transaction system OR combinations thereof (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 6-25, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a resource buffer, transceiver, processor, server, purchase device, computer readable medium storing instructions, user device (POS device, store register, payment device, digital cart) at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Paragraph 21). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. server, purchase device, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of storing, accessing, displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system, processor, interface, component and memory merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Paragraph 21). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. server, purchase device, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zeng et al. U.S. Patent No. 11367091 discloses a system and method for determining retail store pricing strategies, for product pricing, utilizing a pricing index
Sundaram et al. U.S. Patent No. 8396814 discloses a system and method for providing unique/custom (flexible) product pricing based on a published index value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625