DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/15/26 has been entered, in which Applicant amended claim 55. Claim 55 is pending in the present application and is under examination on the merit.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has yet been filed. As such, No Information Disclosure Statement has been considered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Revised 35 USC § 101 rejections of claim 55 regarding abstract ideas are applied in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
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.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In the instant case, claim 55 is directed towards a system.
Regarding claim 55, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The following claim limitations are analogous to court identified abstract ideas that are representative of certain methods of organizing human activity:
(a) generate from … a message and posting the message on the network via the network interface programmed by instructions of the above plurality, the message comprising an offer to sell a product, the offer presenting open data on the product with at least the name of the product and a current asking product price;
(b) feed … first hidden data with current minimum acceptable price of the product equal to, or less than, the current asking product price, second hidden data with seller's requirements for buyer's individual characteristics, and third hidden data with at least one set of messages to test individual characteristics of the buyer, the first, the second and the third data being saved in the memory subsystem;
(c) receive a message …, the message comprising a buyer's price of the product;
(d) send, provided that the buyer's price is lower than the current minimum acceptable price, a test request message … the test message suggesting message communicating between the central processor and the buyer's computer to discuss the price;
(e) select, … a set of messages from the third hidden data …; and
(f) analyze a test request acceptance message … and respond to the acceptance message by successively sending messages from the selected set of messages …,
(g) receive response messages …,
(h) analyze … the response messages and compare them with the second hidden data to define a level of compliance of the response messages to the seller's requirements from the second hidden data;
(i) convert results of the comparison … into a monetary equivalent according to instructions from the above plurality;
(j) add the monetary equivalent to the buyer's price of the product in the memory subsystem,
(k) compare the result of the adding with the asking price in the first hidden data; and
(l) generate a transaction authorization message … provided the result of the comparison in step (k) is no less than the minimum acceptable price from the first hidden data.
(m) whereby performance of online trading is substantially enhanced.
The concepts described in the limitations when taken both as a whole and individually are not meaningfully different than those found by the courts to be abstract ideas and are similarly considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations. The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations that improve upon the underlying computer technology. Additionally, the claim recites additional elements of: “A system for conducting a retail transaction between a seller and a buyer via a network, such as the Internet, the system comprising: - on the seller's side - a central processor executing the plurality of instructions of a unique algorithm and connected to a programmable network interface and a memory subsystem, said network interface connected to the network and receiving information of an incoming transaction from said central processor of the seller and from a computer of the buyer, and said memory subsystem connected to the network interface and storing central processor executable information about the seller, the buyer, and the incoming transaction; and - on the buyer's side - a buyer's computer that is connected to the network, the central processor and the buyer's computer being configured to cause the system without human participation to:” (computer processor and memory connected through a network); “(a) posting the message on the network via the network interface programmed by instruction of the above plurality … (b) feed into the memory subsystem, using the interface programmed by instructions from the above plurality… (c) receive a message from the buyer's computer at the network interface and direct the same to the central processor according to instructions from the above plurality… (d) … the test message suggesting message communicating between the central processor and the buyer's computer to discuss the price … (f)… successively sending messages from the selected set of messages to the buyer's computer from the central processor via the network interface according to instructions from the above plurality:… (g) receive response messages from the buyer's computer at the network interface and directing the received messages to the memory subsystem for saving” (sending and receiving information over a network). Examiner notes that the implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology in this way is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims.
Additionally, the elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In regard to the claims showing significantly more, the claims do not recite “significantly more” because the claim is not either 1) improving another technology, 2) improving the functioning of the computer itself, 3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, 4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, 5) Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or 6) Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, as pointed out in the USPTO 101 Guidance.
The method and system, as claimed by the applicant, is no more than a general linking of the use of the abstract idea (an idea of itself) to a particular technological environment (the use of computers to calculate and transmit data). The recitation of well-known computer functions does not meet the “significantly more” threshold. Additionally, the application of computer technology amounts to merely applying the abstract concepts via computer elements. (see Applicant’s disclosure for implementation of computer components in Pages 29 and 38). The recited computer elements and functions that are applied to the abstract idea in the claims are “A system for conducting a retail transaction between a seller and a buyer via a network, such as the Internet, the system comprising: - on the seller's side - a central processor executing the plurality of instructions of a unique algorithm and connected to a programmable network interface and a memory subsystem, said network interface connected to the network and receiving information of an incoming transaction from said central processor of the seller and from a computer of the buyer, and said memory subsystem connected to the network interface and storing central processor executable information about the seller, the buyer, and the incoming transaction; and - on the buyer's side - a buyer's computer that is connected to the network, the central processor and the buyer's computer being configured to cause the system without human participation to:” (computer processor and memory connected through a network); “(a) posting the message on the network via the network interface programmed by instruction of the above plurality … (b) feed into the memory subsystem, using the interface programmed by instructions from the above plurality… (c) receive a message from the buyer's computer at the network interface and directing the same to the central processor according to instructions from the above plurality… (d) … the test message suggesting message communicating between the central processor and the buyer's computer to discuss the price … (f)… successively sending messages from the selected set of messages to the buyer's computer from the central processor via the network interface according to instructions from the above plurality:… (g) receive response messages from the buyer's computer at the network interface and directing the received messages to the memory subsystem for saving” (sending and receiving information over a network). For additional information see MPEP 2106.05(f) “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology without an analogous situation that does not involve computer technology.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis.
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claim 55 is found to be provisionally allowable. The claim would be found to be allowable if it overcame the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Subject Matter Overcoming the Prior Art of Record
It appears that the instant invention is beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly the invention would NOT have been obvious because one of ordinary skill could not have been expected to achieve it, NOR would they have been able to predict the results, and as such, they would have had no capability of expecting success.
The following is an examiner's statement of features not found in the prior art of record:
Claim 55 overcomes the prior art of record and is found to be provisionally allowable. The following limitations of claim 1,
…
(a) generate from the central processor, using instructions of the above plurality, a message and posting the message on the network via the network interface programmed by instructions of the above plurality, the message comprising an offer to sell a product, the offer presenting open data on the product with at least the name of the product and a current asking product price;
(b) feed into the memory subsystem, using the interface programmed by instructions from the above plurality, first hidden data with current minimum acceptable price of the product equal to, or less than, the current asking product price, second hidden data with seller's requirements for buyer's individual characteristics, and third hidden data with at least one set of messages to test individual characteristics of the buyer, the first, the second and the third data being saved in the memory subsystem;
(c) receive a message from the buyer's computer at the network interface and direct the same to the central processor according to instructions from the above plurality, the message comprising a buyer's price of the product;
(d) send, provided that the buyer's price is lower than the current minimum acceptable price, a test request message from the central processor to the buyer's computer via the network interface according to instructions from the above plurality, the test message suggesting message communicating between the central processor and the buyer's computer to discuss the price;
(e) select, according to instructions from the above plurality, a set of messages from the third hidden data in the memory subsystem for directing to the buyer's computer; and
(f) analyze a test request acceptance message from the buyer's computer in the central processor and respond to the acceptance message by successively sending messages from the selected set of messages to the buyer's computer from the central processor via the network interface according to instructions from the above plurality:,
(g) receive response messages from the buyer's computer at the network interface and directing the received messages to the memory subsystem for saving,
(h) analyze in the central processor the response messages and compare them with the second hidden data to define a level of compliance of the response messages to the seller's requirements from the second hidden data;
(i) convert results of the comparison in the central processor into a monetary equivalent according to instructions from the above plurality;
(j) add the monetary equivalent to the buyer's price of the product in the memory subsystem,
(k) compare the result of the adding with the asking price in the first hidden data; and
(l) generate a transaction authorization message in the central processor provided the result of the comparison in step (k) is no less than the minimum acceptable price from the first hidden data.
(m) whereby performance of online trading is substantially enhanced.
in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings.
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Wood et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0045154) - The abstract provides for the following: Method and system for determining personal characteristics of an individual or group and using same to provide personalized advice or services. The system dynamically incorporates several personality dimensions, life style, quality of life, cultural context, demographics, and psychographics, as requested by the test administrator or individual user, and controls and standardizes the testing protocol, and retains test data in such a way that individuals and non-professional users can reliably self-administer the tests, save their test results in a system database, and use the results to obtain personality-based advice, content, and people-matching services from a system proprietor.
Herz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2001/0014868) - The abstract provides for the following: The system for the automatic determination of customized prices and promotions automatically constructs product offers tailored to individual shoppers, or types of shopper, in a way that attempts to maximize the vendor's profits. These offers are represented digitally. They are communicated either to the vendor, who may act on them as desired, or to an on-line computer shopping system that directly makes such offers to shoppers. Largely by tracking the behavior of shoppers, the system accumulates extensive profiles of the shoppers and the offers that they consider. The system can then select, present, price, and promote goods and services in ways that are tailored to an individual consumer. Likely shoppers can be identified, then enticed with the most effective visual and textual advertisements; deals can be offered to them, either on-line or off-line; detailed product information screens can be subtly rearranged from one type of shopper to the next. Furthermore, when a product can be tailored to a particular shopper, a general technique or expert system can offer each consumer an appropriately customized product).
Milton (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0070232) - The abstract provides for the following: A system and method for providing comparative market values in conjunction with creating or browsing online sales listings. Sellers automatically receive comparative market values while creating sales listings to thereby facilitate the establishment of sales prices. Potential buyers are provided comparative market values for items listed in sales listings while viewing the listings. Whether creating or viewing sales listings, comparative market values are provided automatically and without the need for the buyer or seller to link out to third-party websites to obtain the information. The present system and method are particularly suitable for operators of e-commerce websites, including auction websites and online classified websites.
Ratliff et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0059101) - The abstract provides for the following: A method and system for providing price information, comprising receiving a request for price information associated with at least one item; obtaining from a database results responsive to the request; modifying at least one entry in the database results to reflect a more competitive price, when compared to another entry in the database results; and providing the database results to a consumer after completing the modifying step.
Joao (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2001/0056374) - The abstract provides for the following: An apparatus for providing compensation for viewing and/or for participating in an advertisement, a survey, a poll, or a questionnaire, including a receiver for receiving a request to obtain information regarding at least one of a good, a product, and a service, a memory device for storing information regarding at least one of the at least one of a good, a product, and a service, advertisement information, survey information, polling information, or questionnaire information, and at least one advertisement, survey, poll, or questionnaire, a processor for processing the request to receive information regarding the at least one of a good, a product, and a service, wherein the processor at least one of identifies and selects an advertisement, a survey, a poll, or a questionnaire, to provide to the information requesting individual upon the information requesting individual placing an order to at least one of purchase and lease at least one of a good, a product, and a service, and a transmitter for transmitting the advertisement, the survey, the poll, or the questionnaire, to a communication device associated with the information requesting individual. The processor at least one of monitors the requesting individual's at least one of viewing and participation in the advertisement, the survey, the poll, or the questionnaire. The processor determines an amount of at least one of a compensation, a reward, a rebate, and an incentive, earned by the information requesting individual. The processor at least one of adjusts and reduces the at least one of a purchase price and a lease price associated with the order by at least a portion of the amount of the at least one of a compensation, a reward, a rebate, and an incentive.
J. Christopher Westland et al. “Global Electronic Commerce: Theory and Case Studies, Chapter 7: Electronic Auctions and Intermediaries,” The abstract provides for the following: This chapter contains sections titled: Market Models, Latency, Sticky Prices, Intermediaries, Distribution and E-commerce, EDI, New Technologies in the Quest for Competitive Advantage, Internet Auctions, Notes, Experiences with Electronic Auctions in the Dutch Flower Industry, E*Trade Securities, Inc..
Greak (WIPO Patent Application Publication Number WO 2005/124678 A2) - The abstract provides for the following: An invention is disclosed relating to an apparatus and method for hosting transactions over a network such as the Internet. Sellers post offers to sell under a listing belonging to an organized database (106) of listings. Likewise, buyers post offers to buy. A matching module (340) selects offers to sell and matches them to offers to buy based on a predefined criteria. Before posting offers to sell or buy, buyers and sellers may be presented with data concerning the market for the product that is the subject of the offer. A sale is consummated between the buyer and seller of the matched offer to buy and offer to sell. Consummation may include assessing the risk of fraud posed by the matched buyer and matched seller. Fees may be charged to the matched buyer, the matched seller, or both as insurance against fraud. Payment may be made by the buyer directly to the seller or to a host hosting the apparatus and method for conducting the transaction. Payment is forwarded to the seller by the host upon confirmation by the buyer that a product has been received in good order. An automated, or partially automated, dispute resolution process may resolve disputed transactions.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 3/15/2026, pgs. 4-8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented above, the claims recite an abstract concept that is encapsulated by decision making analogous to a method of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that each of the limitations that encapsulate the abstract concepts are recited in the above 35 USC 101. Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations and provide for direction for either a person or machine to follow at some future time. The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations and directions that improve upon the underlying computer technology (in this instance the computer software, processor, and memory). Instead, Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claim language are only used as implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology. Applicant argues on Page 5 of Applicant’s Remarks that there are conclusory determinations in claim language, particularly the amended claim language. However, Examiner finds that these determinations are part of the abstract idea and merely serve to further abstract of business practices rather than fundamentally improve the computer technology utilized by the claim language. Further Applicant argues on Page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks that the computer itself is improved. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The implementation of a more efficient algorithm does not improve a computer, it instead provides less data for a computer to process. This is not the same as an improvement to technology, but rather an improvement to the abstract idea. Efficient implementation is insufficient to rise to the level of eligibility under the Alice framework. The concepts described in the limitations when taken both as a whole and individually are not meaningfully different than those found by the courts to be abstract ideas and are similarly considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Examiner find this to be clearly articulated by Applicant on Page 4 of Applicant’s Remarks where it is stated “[the limitations] are intended to replace human activity, rather than organize it.” This statement clearly indicates that the Applicant is intending to take an abstract concept and implement it using computer components. This kind of implementation is expressly prohibited under the MPEP. For additional information see MPEP 2106.05(f) “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Just because a computer can do something faster does not render an abstract idea eligible when it is implemented on a computer. Further, the steps are then encapsulated into a particular technological environment by executing these steps upon a computer processor and utilizing features such as a computer interface or sending and receiving data over a network or displaying information via a computerized graphical user interface. However, sending and receiving of information over a network and execution of algorithms on a computer are utilized only to facilitate the abstract concepts (i.e. selecting data on an interface, publishing/displaying information, etc.), even if these steps are fully encapsulated in a computer process. Just because a computer can perform a process automatically or with minimal involvement does not indicate an improvement to computer technology or indicate that no abstract idea is present as the Alice analysis framework applies to all statutory categories of invention including systems. As such, Examiner asserts that the implementation of the abstract concepts recited by the claims utilize computer technology in a way that is considered to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims. Finally, Applicant appears to conflate novelty with eligibility in terms of amounting to significantly more. Examiner notes that the cited portion of the MPEP refers to the additional element portions of the claim language as whether or not they contribute an inventive concept. This is different than reciting an abstract idea that is novel. While Examiner has found the independent claim to recite allowable subject matter, this by itself does not render the 35 USC 101 analysis moot. Instead, Examiner must review the claim language to determine if the additional elements provide for limitations that rise to the level of significantly more. In the present case, Examiner has set out the specific additional elements and expressly delineated how each of them fall into categories provided by the MPEP as routine computer functions. As such, even when taken together, Examiner finds that the claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. No amount of novelty in the abstract idea conveys significantly more under the MPEP analysis. As such, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
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.
/M.H.D/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights