DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 9, 2026, has been entered.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18, were previously pending. Applicant’s request for continued examination was originally filed May 13, 2026, but the accompanying amendment was nonresponsive. A notice of nonresponsive amendment was mailed June 17, 2026. Applicant’s responsive amendment and remarks filed August 9, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed November 18, 2025. Claims 1, 8, and 13, have been amended. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18, are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 101 in the previous office action
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The amendment has not overcome this ground of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed August 9, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant recites the amended claim but does not present argument directed to this issue.
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, 3-9, 11-16, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to 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) (step 1). 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) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18, are directed to a process. All claims are therefore within a statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1. The analysis therefore continues with step 2A, prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“determining, by … an exchange item marketplace network, to set an acquisition threshold for an exchange item of the exchange item marketplace network in accordance with a dynamically adjusting acquisition approach; obtaining, … exchange item marketplace network information relevant to determining the acquisition threshold; obtaining, … a plurality of acquisition rules regarding the exchange item from the identified exchange item marketplace network information; generating, …a dynamic acquisition threshold adjustment matrix based on exchange item information associated with the exchange item, the identified exchange item marketplace network information, and the plurality of acquisition rules, wherein the dynamic acquisition threshold adjustment matrix specifies a set of dynamic conditions and, for each dynamic condition of the set of dynamic conditions, a corresponding condition threshold and a corresponding acquisition threshold; determining, … a current acquisition threshold for the exchange item based on the dynamic acquisition threshold adjustment matrix; updating, … the exchange item information to include the current acquisition threshold and the dynamic acquisition threshold adjustment matrix to produce updated exchange item information; modifying, … a record associated with the exchange item to include the updated exchange item information, wherein the record is stored in the marketplace database; listing… the exchange item for acquisition in the exchange item marketplace network at the current acquisition threshold; while the exchange item remains listed for acquisition and has not been acquired, monitoring… in real time, the set of dynamic conditions within the exchange item marketplace network; determining… that a current value of a dynamic condition of the set of dynamic conditions compares favorably to the corresponding condition threshold: and in response to determining that the current value compares favorably to the corresponding condition threshold: automatically adjusting … without human intervention, the current acquisition threshold of the exchange item to the corresponding acquisition threshold; and updating the record in the marketplace database to include the adjusted current acquisition threshold, and wherein the plurality of acquisition rules prevents the current acquisition threshold from being adjusted outside an allowable threshold range; and wherein the automatically adjusting the current acquisition threshold reduces a duration that the exchange item is listed for acquisition in the exchange item marketplace network, thereby decreasing memory required to store the exchange item information in the marketplace database.” Claim 1.
A careful analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the groupings of abstract ideas described as mental processes similar to concepts performed in the human mind (such as an observation, evaluation, or judgment), and certain methods of organizing human activity, for example fundamental economic principles or practices or commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. There is only one additional element in the present independent claim, a marketplace server. This additional element has been considered individually and in combination altogether as a whole with the functions it performs, e.g., the marketplace server is recited as broadly and generically performing the entirety of the method in terms of recitations of intended results of functionally nonspecific activities with no technical detail. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims lack any indication that any additional element practically applies any of the abstract elements. The claim is almost entirely a recitation of abstract ideas and descriptions of abstract intended results without any indication of particular operations performed by any device or structural element. The additional element does not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, does not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, does not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and fails to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a). The present claims assert an abstract information processing method with no improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology.
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the few additional elements of the claims are mere props tangentially recited to support instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to such a problem. Mere recitation that storing less information in a database requires less memory is not a solution to any identified problem, technical or otherwise. The method claimed is a nontechnical series of steps taken to practice an entrepreneurial activity. This conclusion is supported by applicant's disclosure, which elaborates upon the performance of the presently claimed method at length by describing the abstract idea in detail while only incidentally or tangentially identifying preexisting (prior art) computer equipment, without identifying any technical problem that arises within said equipment and without offering a technical solution to any such problem. It ultimately only describes the abstract idea while indicating the intention to “apply it” using computer devices.
Dependent claims 3-4, 6-7, and 13, further include a computing device. This computing device is an input/output node representing the user in the process and serving as an information source for a single item. It serves no other purpose and therefore does not alter the above rationale. Computer components recited as performing functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional cannot be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. In determining whether the recited functions are well-understood, routine and conventional activities examiner considered court decisions discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which explain that data gathering and outputting, and receiving and transmitting data over a network, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Dependent claim 4 includes a recitation of additional information (“acquisition bids”) and its source, other user (“buyer”) computing devices, merely adding additional abstract information from generic additional elements that do not perform any function other than to provide the recited abstract information. Claim 13 again recites further generic additional elements (“a second computing device” and additional servers) that again contribute only additional information sources with no recitation of any particular specialized activity or function practiced in acquiring or providing said information. Dependent claims 5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18, do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the identification of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one."). The remaining dependent claims offer no additional elements, reciting only additional abstract ideas similar to those recited in independent claim 1. This has no effect on the considered rationale detailed above.
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18, are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6-7, and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 6-7, and 13, recite the limitation "the computing device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. This is particularly unclear because the only computing device previously mentioned in the claims is the marketplace server, but the marketplace server is separately identified in claims 6-7 and 13, and other claims introduce other more specific “buyer computing devices” and “a second computing device” so it is unknown to what computing device applicant is intending to refer, or if applicant intends to introduce another distinct computing device.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 recites a method that comprises
“determining, by a marketplace server of an exchange item marketplace network, to set an acquisition threshold for an exchange item of the exchange item marketplace network in accordance with a dynamically adjusting acquisition approach; obtaining, by the marketplace server, exchange item marketplace network information relevant to determining the acquisition threshold; obtaining, by the marketplace server, a plurality of acquisition rules regarding the exchange item from the identified exchange item marketplace network information; generating, by the marketplace server, a dynamic acquisition threshold adjustment matrix based on exchange item information associated with the exchange item, the identified exchange item marketplace network information, and the plurality of acquisition rules, wherein the dynamic acquisition threshold adjustment matrix specifies a set of dynamic conditions and, for each dynamic condition of the set of dynamic conditions, a corresponding condition threshold and a corresponding acquisition threshold; determining, by the marketplace server a current acquisition threshold for the exchange item based on the dynamic acquisition threshold adjustment matrix; updating, by the marketplace server, the exchange item information to include the current acquisition threshold and the dynamic acquisition threshold matrix to produce updated exchange item information; modifying, by the marketplace server, a record associated with the exchange item to include the updated exchange item information, wherein the record is stored in the marketplace database; listing, by the marketplace server, the exchange item for acquisition in the exchange item marketplace network at the current acquisition threshold; while the exchange item remains listed for acquisition and has not been acquired, monitoring, by the marketplace server and in real time, the set of dynamic conditions within the exchange item marketplace network; determining, by the marketplace server, that a current value of a dynamic condition of the set of dynamic conditions compares favorably to the corresponding condition threshold; and in response to determining that the current value compares favorably to the corresponding condition threshold: automatically adjusting, by the marketplace server and without human intervention, the current acquisition threshold of the exchange item to the corresponding acquisition threshold; and updating the record in the marketplace database to include the adjusted current acquisition threshold, and wherein the plurality of acquisition rules prevents the current acquisition threshold from being adjusted outside an allowable threshold range; and wherein the automatically adjusting the current acquisition threshold reduces a duration that the exchange item is listed for acquisition in the exchange item marketplace network, thereby decreasing memory required to store the exchange item information in the marketplace database.”
The closest applicable prior art has been previously introduced and distinguished by amendment. In particular the italicized limitations, although all limitations as they appear in combination are required. Other applicable prior art includes Metnick (Paper No. 20251111; Patent No. US 10,679,267 B2) and Song (cited as item U in the form PTO-892 accompanying Paper No. 20251111).
Metnick teaches comparing value of an exchange item against an acquisition value threshold that triggers alternative exchange item utilization protocol rules to facilitate the acquisition of the particular item. Metnick however does not teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious at least the above noted limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
The Non-Patent Literature article by Song discloses digitized payments in e-commerce but does not teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious at least the above noted limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
In light of the above and examiner’s overall review of the prior art it is examiner’s conclusion that the body of prior art currently known to the examiner does not alone or in combination disclose, anticipate, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the above noted features of the present method. It should be noted that this conclusion is based on the presence of all claimed features as they operate in conjunction rather than solely on any one feature or isolated group of features.
The most relevant applicable and nonduplicative prior art having been previously introduced, addressed, and distinguished, by amendment and argument during the course of prosecution, it is examiner’s position that together with the above the record is clear with regard to the reasons for allowability of the claimed invention over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights