DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended in the response filed May 7, 2025.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected.
Detailed rejections begin on page 3.
Response to Arguments begins on page 12.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-19 and 21 Reasons for indicating subject matter free of the prior art can be found in the Office Action mailed March 7, 2025.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The steps for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be found in the MPEP § 2106.03-2106.05.
Under Step 1, the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-8 and 21, is directed to a process. Additionally, the system, as claimed in claims 9-16, is directed to a machine. Furthermore, the non-transitory computer-readable medium, as claimed in claims 17-19, is directed to an article of manufacture.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of monitoring an item and purchasing the item at a specific price. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving an indication to buy a desired item, through a marketplace, from a buyer;
generating an item curve for the desired item based on a history of sales through the marketplace of sold items that are similar to the desired item, the item curve indicating whether the desired item is in high demand, low demand, or neutral demand;
generating a buyer curve for the buyer based on a buyer history of the buyer through the marketplace, the buyer history comprising list prices for products by sellers, bids by the buyer on those products, and price adjustments made by the buyer during a life of the bids;
generating a purchase curve for the desired item based on modifying the buyer curve based on a demand for the desired item as indicated by the item curve, wherein the modifying comprises one of:
based on the item curve indicating the desired item is in high demand, increasing a bid price indicated by the buyer curve, and
based on the item curve indicating the desired item is in low demand, decreasing the bid price indicated by the buyer curve;
providing a display of the purchase curve for the desired item;
receiving a response to the purchase curve, wherein the response comprises one of an adjustment or approval of the purchase curve by the buyer;
refining based on the response to the purchase curve, wherein the adjustment comprises negative feedback and the approval without the adjustment comprises positive feedback;
generating subsequent item curves, buyer curves, and purchase curves, using the at least one of the positive feedback and the negative feedback; and
monitoring the desired item across the marketplace, for the buyer, based on the response to the purchase curve;
determining, based upon the monitoring, a correspondence between a list price of the desired item and the purchase curve;
transmitting a notification alert to the buyer that the correspondence between the list price of the desired item and the purchase curve has been found;
displaying responsive to the notification alert, the list price of the desired item and the purchase curve in real-time;
receiving an approval from the buyer wherein the approval authorizes the purchase of the desired item in accordance with the correspondence; and
purchasing the desired item for the buyer based on both the approval received from the buyer and the correspondence between the list price of the desired item and the purchase curve.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in the guidance. When considering MPEP §2106.04(a), the claims recite an abstract idea. For example, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of monitoring an item and purchasing the item at a specific price, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined in the MPEP as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because transmitting a notification alert to the buyer that the correspondence between the list price of the desired item and the purchase curve has been found; receiving an approval from the buyer wherein the approval authorizes the purchase of the desired item in accordance with the correspondence; and purchasing the desired item for the buyer based on both the approval received from the buyer and the correspondence between the list price of the desired item and the purchase curve is a sales activity. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The recited limitations of representative claim 1 also recite an abstract idea because they are considered to be mental processes. As described in the MPEP, mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection III. In this case, receiving an indication to buy a desired item, through a marketplace, from a buyer; receiving a response to the purchase curve, wherein the response comprises one of an adjustment or approval of the purchase curve by the buyer; monitoring the desired item across the marketplace, for the buyer, based on the response to the purchase curve; and receiving an approval from the buyer wherein the approval authorizes the purchase of the desired item in accordance with the correspondence are types of observation. Additionally, generating an item curve for the desired item based on a history of sales through the marketplace of sold items that are similar to the desired item, the item curve indicating whether the desired item is in high demand, low demand, or neutral demand; generating a buyer curve for the buyer based on a buyer history of the buyer through the marketplace, the buyer history comprising list prices for products by sellers, bids by the buyer on those products, and price adjustments made by the buyer during a life of the bids; generating a purchase curve for the desired item based on modifying the buyer curve based on a demand for the desired item as indicated by the item curve, wherein the modifying comprises one of: based on the item curve indicating the desired item is in high demand, increasing a bid price indicated by the buyer curve, and based on the item curve indicating the desired item is in low demand, decreasing the bid price indicated by the buyer curve; generating subsequent item curves, buyer curves, and purchase curves, using the at least one of the positive feedback and the negative feedback; and determining, based upon the monitoring, a correspondence between a list price of the desired item and the purchase curve are types of evaluation. Furthermore, providing a display of the purchase curve for the desired item; monitoring the desired item across the marketplace, for the buyer, based on the approval of the purchase curve; refining based on the response to the purchase curve, wherein the adjustment comprises negative feedback and the approval without the adjustment comprises positive feedback transmitting a notification alert to the buyer that the correspondence between the list price of the desired item and the purchase curve has been found; displaying responsive to the notification alert, the list price of the desired item and the purchase curve in real-time; and purchasing the desired item for the buyer based on both the approval received from the buyer and the correspondence between the list price of the desired item and the purchase curve are types of judgment. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The recited limitations of representative claim 1 further recite an abstract idea because they are considered to be mathematical concepts. As described in the MPEP, mathematical concepts are “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations”. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection I. In this case, generating an item curve for the desired item based on a history of sales through the marketplace of sold items that are similar to the desired item, the item curve indicating whether the desired item is in high demand, low demand, or neutral demand; generating a buyer curve for the buyer based on a buyer history of the buyer through the marketplace, the buyer history comprising list prices for products by sellers, bids by the buyer on those products, and price adjustments made by the buyer during a life of the bids; and generating a purchase curve for the desired item based on modifying the buyer curve based on a demand for the desired item as indicated by the item curve, wherein the modifying comprises one of: based on the item curve indicating the desired item is in high demand, increasing a bid price indicated by the buyer curve, and based on the item curve indicating the desired item is in low demand, decreasing the bid price indicated by the buyer curve are mathematical calculations. Additionally, determining, based upon the monitoring, a correspondence between a list price of the desired item and the purchase curve is a mathematical relationship. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as an electronic marketplace, a machine learning system, a user interface, wherein the notification alert comprises at least a log in link to the electronic marketplace, and at least one processor.
Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., monitoring an item and purchasing the item at a specific price) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See MPEP §2106.05.
In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components ... ‘ad[d] nothing ... that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Also see MPEP §2106.05(f). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 21 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 5 and 7 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1. Also, claims 2-4, 6, 8, and 21 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract limitations recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, it is noted that claims 2-8 and 21 do not include further additional elements not previously recited. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 2-8 and 21 are also ineligible.
Lastly, the analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Although literally invoking a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively, claims 9-16 and 17-19 remain only broadly and generally defined, with the claimed functionality paralleling that of claims 1-8 and 1-3, respectively. It is noted that claim 9 includes further additional elements of a system comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor configured to perform operations, and claim 17 includes further additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. As such, claims 9-16 and 17-19 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. However, in view of the amendments, new grounds of rejection have been applied. These new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to pages 13-14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “training a computing system to improve the performance of a task is patent eligible, as supported by Example 21 of the USPTO subject matter eligibility examples.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s analysis of their claims with respect to Example 21.
Claim 2 of Example 21 recites an abstract idea because it recites comparing and organizing stock quote information, which is a mental process. However, the claim is eligible because the recited combination of additional elements improves how the system can alert a subscriber when they are offline by sending an alert to the computer, which then automatically connects the application to the Internet when the computer comes online. Individually, the claim elements do not recite the improvement, but it is the specific combination of elements that results in the claim as a whole being eligible.
In contrast, the instant claims do not recite such an improvement because the claims do not integrate the notification being sent to the computer in a timely manner with the user logging in to approve the notification. The incorporation of the log in link is merely ancillary, and without the explicit connection of this feature to the rest of the claim, the improvement goal of the notification accessing the user and the application receiving the approval is not achieved. Thus, the claims are not like Claim 21 in reciting an improvement to the computer technology because the claim does not properly combine all of the necessary elements to achieve the claimed improvement.
With respect to pages 14-15 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “as recited by the claims, the automatic monitoring of a desired item based on a purchase curve approved by the buyer, and the subsequent transmission of a notification to alert the buyer of a correspondence between the listed price and the purchase curve, solves the problem of increased computing bandwidth consumed by the existing approach of the buyer manually monitoring the desired item on the electronic marketplace (See Specification paras. [0002], [0011]). Therefore, the claims are patent eligible because they are implemented in the practical application of purchasing items from electronic marketplaces and are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP at §§ 2106.04(d)1 and 2106.05(a) provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, the instant claims do not recite such an improvement because the claims do not integrate the notification being sent to the computer in a timely manner with the user logging in to approve the notification. The incorporation of the log in link is merely ancillary, and without the explicit connection of this feature to the rest of the claim, the improvement goal of the notification accessing the user and the application receiving the approval is not achieved. Although the specification discloses an improvement to the computer, noting a reduction in bandwidth, the claims are not reflective of this improvement because the technology that is the source of this improvement is recited in an ancillary manner rather than integrated into the claim’s functioning as a whole. Rather, directed to improving the commercial, mental, and mathematical tasks of generating purchase, item, and buyer curves. Thus, the claims do not recite the improvement to the computer technology as disclosed in the specification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-5820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Kelly Campen, can be reached on (571) 272-67406740. 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.
/KATHERINE A BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688