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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2024 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 32-44 are pending in this application.
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 32-44 continue to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 32-44 are directed to a method which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 32 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 32 recites the limitations of seller selling/exchanging assets by showing the various offers in relation to pricing or exchange rate.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Categorizing a user’s offer into exchange rate bands (“the offer” includes fungible-financial-asset identification and exchange rate [the examiner notes that “fungible financial asset” is not defined]); graphically presenting the offer to other users (assuming potential buyers); showing “velocities of sequencing” within the price [the examiner notes that “velocities of sequencing” is not defined]);
receiving offers for other users user (buyer) can modify price (“modified offer” is not defined); and offer is modified, – specifically, the claim recites: “categorizing an offer from the user into one of a plurality of predefined exchange rate bands, the offer comprising an identification of the fungible financial asset and a proposed exchange rate; graphically presenting the offer from the user, allowing the offer to be individually identified as it enters a queue in the categorized band, such that the user may observe and determine velocities of sequencing within the exchange rate band; graphically presenting other offers from other users in the same predefined exchange rate bands, such that the user may observe and determine velocities of sequencing of different exchange rates; receiving and graphically presenting offers from other user devices in the community,
providing the user with actionable information to modify the offer; while maintaining the first offer, modifying the offer from the user with a new exchange rate resulting in a modified offer,” recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk of over paying.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a graphic user interface”, “a user device”, “one or more processing devices”, “a non-transitory storage device”, and “other user devices”, in claim 32, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a user device, one or more processing devices, modules of instruction code, and other user devices; a communication device such as a graphic user interface; a storage unit such as a non-transitory storage device; and software module and algorithm such as modules of instruction code. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 32 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 32 is re not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 32 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 33 discloses the limitation of receiving acceptance of the modified offer from a second user device and conducting a transaction comprising the accepted modified offer, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a second user device” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 34 discloses the limitation of the offers categorized in a first predefined exchange rate band are ordered into first queues, each subsequent offer in each predefined first exchange rate band being added to the end of the first queue, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 35 discloses the limitation of each offer in each predefined exchange rate band is displayed as a portion of a graphical indicator that corresponds to the predefined first exchange rate band, the graphical indicator corresponding to different positions within the queues, thereby allowing progression of the individual offers along the queues to be viewed on a display, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “a graphical indicator” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 36 discloses the limitation of the first exchange rates are prices at which individuals of a first group offer to sell units of a first monetary currency in return for units of a second monetary currency, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 37 discloses the limitation of the offers are monetary currency for goods or services, and wherein the exchange rate is a price at which the first user offers to sell the goods or services, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 38 discloses the limitation of the accepted modified offer is the exchange rate at which the second user agrees to purchase the goods or services, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 39 discloses the limitation of graphically presenting the offers comprises providing the user device with a graphic interface information to display, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the user device” and “a graphic interface information”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 40 discloses the limitation of the user device receives the information to display via the Internet, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the user device” and “the Internet”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 41 discloses the limitation of graphically presenting an offer comprises displaying a numerical indicator of the predefined exchange rate band, the numerical indicator associated with an overall number of offers at the predefined exchange rate band, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 42 discloses the limitation of receiving acceptance of the modified offer comprises receiving an input from a second user selecting a graphic indicator of the modified offer on the second user device, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a graphic indicator” and “the second user device”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 43 discloses the limitation of the offer specifies a first price, exchange rate, or number of items for sale or exchange, and wherein the modified offer specifies a second price, exchange rate, or number of items for sale or exchange, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 44 discloses the limitation of after acceptance of the modified offer, deleting the offer from the queue in the categorized band, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 32-44 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 32-44 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick (20060064409) in view of Van Luchene (WO2007095567) and Loh (20020161692).
Regarding claim 32, Hardwick discloses
a method for improving a user experience and process efficiency in purchasing, selling, or trading fungible financial assets, by presenting a graphic user interface providing visual information to discern both overall market evolution trends and granular insight into individual offers, the method utilizing direct connectivity and interactivity between the user device and a community of other user devices, the method implemented by one or more processing devices operatively coupled to a non-transitory storage device, on which are stored modules of instruction code that when executed cause the one or more processors to perform:
(“[0048] FIG. 3 illustrates an electronic barter system 310 that is connected to one or more users 305 using a computer network… The users can interact with the electronic barter system using by providing user input on a web page, and the electronic barter system can communicate with the users by displaying information on a web page that is displayed to the user. In addition, electronic mail (email) can also be used to communicate between the users and the electronic barter system”).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
categorizing an offer from the user into one of a plurality of predefined exchange rate bands
(“12... displaying the result of a search operation comprises displaying search results in three categories, a first category displaying a perfect match, a second category displaying matching second sought items, and a third category displaying matching second offered items”).
(“13… wherein displaying the search results comprises displaying the first category, the second category, and the third category in descending order”).
the offer comprising an identification of the fungible financial asset and a proposed exchange rate
(“[0015] FIG. 1 illustrates a method 100 for identifying and displaying barter exchanges between two users. Input is received from a first user specifying one or more first offered items and one or more first sought items (step 105). The first offered items are items that the first user is offering to trade, and the first sought items are items that the first user is seeking to obtain in exchange for the first offered items. In addition, input is received from a second user specifying one or more second sought items, and one or more second offered items (step 110)”).
(“[0048] FIG. 3 […] The users can interact with the electronic barter system using by providing user input on a web page, and the electronic barter system can communicate with the users by displaying information on a web page that is displayed to the user. In addition, electronic mail (email) can also be used to communicate between the users and the electronic barter system”).
graphically presenting the offer from the user, allowing the offer to be individually identified as it enters a queue in the categorized band, such that the user may observe and determine [velocities of sequencing] within the exchange rate band
(“[0048] FIG. 3 illustrates an electronic barter system 310 that is connected to one or more users 305 using a computer network. The network can be a local area network ("LAN"), wide area network ("WAN"), virtual private network ("VPN"), or other network that is configured to transmit data among the users, and the electronic barter system. In one implementation the electronic barter system is implemented on a server and the users communicate with the electronic barter system using client computers that are connected to the server. The users can interact with the electronic barter system using by providing user input on a web page, and the electronic barter system can communicate with the users by displaying information on a web page that is displayed to the user. In addition, electronic mail (email) can also be used to communicate between the users and the electronic barter system”).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving and graphically presenting offers from other user devices in the community, providing the user with actionable information to modify the offer;
while maintaining the first offer, modifying the offer from the user with a new exchange rate resulting in a modified offer
(“[0017] FIG. 2 illustrates a method 200 for completing an exchange transaction between the first user and the second user. A proposed transaction is received from the second user proposing an exchange transaction (step 205). The second user can propose a transaction based on a displayed perfect match, i.e., where the first user is offering all of the items sought by the second user, and where the first user is seeking to obtain at least one of the items offered by the second user. The second user can also include an offer to make a cash payment as part of the proposed transaction”).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hardwick does not disclose
[velocities of sequencing].
However, Van Luchene teaches
[velocities of sequencing]
(The examiner notes that “velocities of sequencing” is not defined by the specification. The examiner is interpreting the term as visible changes due to actions by participants – this is taught by “[0379] Players may establish alerts to notify them of transactions on a virtual exchange. Alerts may be established to monitor the number, type, price, trends, volume, volatility, or any other parameter of interest for the transaction of one or more assets. Such alerts may be sent by any means applicable including, but not limited to, e-mail, text mail, voice messaging, and/or screen alerts.” If the applicant wishes to have a different interpretation, e.g., if the display is of a particular/unique design, then the claim language should be amended to reflect that intent”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hardwick to include [velocities of sequencing] as taught by Van Luchene because motivation being to display/show the counterparty how fast the price or other important factors are changing so that the counterparty can make informed decision on what step to take. See at least paragraph 379.
Hardwick also does not disclose
graphically presenting other offers from other users in the same predefined exchange rate bands, such that the user may observe and determine velocities of sequencing of different prices or exchange rates; graphically presenting the offer to the user.
However, Loh teaches
graphically presenting other offers from other users in the same predefined exchange rate bands, such that the user may observe and determine velocities of sequencing of different prices or exchange rates; graphically presenting the offer to the user
(“[0095] In step 474, the system displays the best three rates for each currency pair. The rates posted are from all of those clients who are currently using the dealing room interface 600. Here, the best three rates for the USD/JPY are listed on the display board… Hence the amount 55 may have come from a single client, or it may be an aggregation of several orders placed by plurality of clients. The interface, 600, however does not indicate whether the posted amount comes from a single client or is an aggregation of multiple postings”).
([0097] Once the deduction is made, the transaction is considered a "done deal" and the system displays the transaction in the "Deal Done" section 626).
See also FIG, 18, item 608 for the different rates, and item 626 for indication of prior exchange rate versus the current exchange rate.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hardwick to include graphically presenting other offers from other users in the same predefined exchange rate bands, such that the user may observe and determine velocities of sequencing of different prices or exchange rates; graphically presenting the offer to the user as taught by Loh because motivation is to create a system where the customer is able to select at least one currency pair to trade at desired exchange rate. See at least paragraph 16-17.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
receiving acceptance of the modified offer from a second user device and conducting a transaction comprising the accepted modified offer
(“[0017] FIG. 2 illustrates a method 200 for completing an exchange transaction between the first user and the second user. A proposed transaction is received from the second user proposing an exchange transaction (step 205). The second user can propose a transaction based on a displayed perfect match, i.e., where the first user is offering all of the items sought by the second user, and where the first user is seeking to obtain at least one of the items offered by the second user. The second user can also include an offer to make a cash payment as part of the proposed transaction”).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
wherein the offers categorized in a first predefined exchange rate band are ordered into first queues, each subsequent offer in each predefined first exchange rate band being added to the end of the first queue
(“[0023] Upon sign-in, the user will be taken by the system to his/her personal site page. Here, users can add or manage the items they are offering and seeking and update their account information. Users can also track feedback or enter feedback on completed transactions with other users. On their home page, uses can list items or services they are offering or seeking, and add or delete items sought or offered. They can choose to accept a swap in return, cash only or a combination of both”).
(“12... displaying the result of a search operation comprises displaying search results in three categories, a first category displaying a perfect match, a second category displaying matching second sought items, and a third category displaying matching second offered items”).
(“13… wherein displaying the search results comprises displaying the first category, the second category, and the third category in descending order”).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
wherein each offer in each predefined exchange rate band is displayed as a portion of a graphical indicator that corresponds to the predefined first exchange rate band, the graphical indicator corresponding to different positions within the queues, thereby allowing progression of the individual offers along the queues to be viewed on a display.
(“12... displaying the result of a search operation comprises displaying search results in three categories, a first category displaying a perfect match, a second category displaying matching second sought items, and a third category displaying matching second offered items”).
(“13… wherein displaying the search results comprises displaying the first category, the second category, and the third category in descending order”).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick does not disclose, however, Loh further discloses
wherein the first exchange rates are prices at which individuals of a first group offer to sell units of a first monetary currency in return for units of a second monetary currency
(“[0095] In step 474, the system displays the best three rates for each currency pair. The rates posted are from all of those clients who are currently using the dealing room interface 600. Here, the best three rates for the USD/JPY are listed on the display board 606… Hence the amount 55 may have come from a single client, or it may be an aggregation of several orders placed by plurality of clients. The interface, 600, however does not indicate whether the posted amount comes from a single client or is an aggregation of multiple postings”).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The motivation is to create a system where the customer is able to select at least one currency pair to trade at desired exchange rate. See paragraphs 16-17.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
wherein the offers are monetary currency for goods or services, and wherein the exchange rate is a price at which the first user offers to sell the goods or services
(“[0015] FIG. 1 illustrates a method 100 for identifying and displaying barter exchanges between two users. Input is received from a first user specifying one or more first offered items and one or more first sought items (step 105). The first offered items are items that the first user is offering to trade, and the first sought items are items that the first user is seeking to obtain in exchange for the first offered items”).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
wherein the accepted modified offer is the exchange rate at which the second user agrees to purchase the goods or services
(“[0017] FIG. 2 illustrates a method 200 for completing an exchange transaction between the first user and the second user. A proposed transaction is received from the second user proposing an exchange transaction (step 205). The second user can propose a transaction based on a displayed perfect match, i.e., where the first user is offering all of the items sought by the second user, and where the first user is seeking to obtain at least one of the items offered by the second user. The second user can also include an offer to make a cash payment as part of the proposed transaction”).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
wherein graphically presenting the offers comprises providing the user device with a graphic interface information to display
(“[0048] FIG. 3 illustrates an electronic barter system 310 that is connected to one or more users 305 using a computer network… The users can interact with the electronic barter system using by providing user input on a web page, and the electronic barter system can communicate with the users by displaying information on a web page that is displayed to the user”).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
wherein the user device receives the information to display via the Internet
(“[0022] In accordance with one embodiment, the process begins with a user going online at a remote computer terminal, and through the Internet accessing the web site of the barter system in accordance with an aspect of the present method and system. This will take the user to a system home page”).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
wherein graphically presenting an offer comprises displaying a numerical indicator of the predefined exchange rate band, the numerical indicator associated with an overall number of offers at the predefined exchange rate band
(“[0007] The system, in accordance with aspects of the present method and system, provides flexibility, allowing users to swap for goods, services, cash or any combination thereof. Users can set their own price or allow the other user to state what the offered items are worth to them. An Instant Purchase option can be used to bypass the negotiation process and allow users to purchase items and services for a set price”).
(“[0014] The users may propose barter exchanges to other parties for goods, services, cash or a combination of goods, services and/or cash… All individuals must agree to the elements of the negotiation to complete the transaction”).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
wherein receiving acceptance of the modified offer comprises receiving an input from a second user selecting a graphic indicator of the modified offer on the second user device
(“[0017] FIG. 2 illustrates a method 200 for completing an exchange transaction between the first user and the second user. A proposed transaction is received from the second user proposing an exchange transaction (step 205). The second user can propose a transaction based on a displayed perfect match, i.e., where the first user is offering all of the items sought by the second user, and where the first user is seeking to obtain at least one of the items offered by the second user. The second user can also include an offer to make a cash payment as part of the proposed transaction”).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
wherein the offer specifies a first price, exchange rate, or number of items for sale or exchange, and wherein the modified offer specifies a second price, exchange rate, or number of items for sale or exchange
(“[0014] Individuals can optionally register on an Internet site and create lists of items/services they have to offer and items/services they are seeking. Exchanges are generally effectuated between two parties, though they can include a third party or more. The users may propose barter exchanges to other parties for goods, services, cash or a combination of goods, services and/or cash… The other party or parties in any exchange may modify the offer by using the same swap wizard tool. All individuals must agree to the elements of the negotiation to complete the transaction”).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Hardwick, Van Luchene, and Loh, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 32.
Hardwick further discloses
after acceptance of the modified offer, deleting the offer from the queue in the categorized band
(“7… further comprising: completing the proposed transaction in response to receiving input from the first user accepting the offer”).
(“11… wherein completing the offer further comprises: completing the proposed transaction in response to receiving input from the second user accepting the counter-offer”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 USC 101… it resides on a machine with particular eprogramming, conducts a method that is not known in the art, provides for the transformation of matter through a graphical user interface, and is narrowly drafted to avoid any potential effort to monopolize an exception. The claims specify how a solution will be implemented that address a business challenge, which is uniquely presented using networked devices, for example, over the Internet,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are clearly directed towards selling/exchanging assets by showing the various offers in relation to pricing or exchange rate. The technical components – such as “a graphic user interface”, “a user device”, “one or more processing devices”, “a non-transitory storage device”, and “other user devices” – are “generic computers” or their components used to carry out the abstract idea. The examiner notes that the claimed invention does not improve “networked devices” or any related technology. The Alice Court teaches that abstract ideas that lack genuine innovation beyond the use of generic computers are not patentable.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Example 41,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is not the same as Example 41. Selling/exchanging assets by showing the various offers in relation to pricing or exchange rate is not the same as establishing cryptographic communications by using an algorithm to encrypt a plaintext into a ciphertext, with a precoded message-to-be-transmitted M and an encoding key E to provide a ciphertext word C for transmission to a particular decoding device. In particular, example 41 teaches a key cryptology improvement by associating public and private key with cipher that relies on factoring of large integers. The claimed invention does not have the elements and the steps recited in Example 41. One must read Example 41 narrowly in deference to the Alice Court’s emphatic prohibition against patenting abstract ideas that lack genuine innovation beyond the use of generic computers. Implementing a business process/idea by processing data using generic computers is not patentable.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. 103… There are numerous differences between pure barter systems as those set forth by the art and the present invention… The present invention explicitly requires systems and methods that determine and apply an exchange rate for substantially every pair of commodities in the system… application recites methods within modern financial markets, and more specifically, involving the emergence of new person-to-person (P2P) Fintech marketplaces,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The differences in the underlying assets being exchange do not change the similarity of the method and system used by the prior art and the claimed invention. Both present the exchange rate for the identified underlying assets to be exchanges. Both could be use on a person to person basis. As stated in the prior office action:
“The present invention teaches trade/exchange of assets of value in the same way the Hardwick teaches exchange of items of value. Both require the unit of exchange to be agreed upon. The applicant is reading both the prior art and applicant’s claimed invention too narrowly. Public policy requires that the examiner read the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Both are doing the same thing – creating an exchanging mechanism for things of value. The specification clearly states “according to an embodiment of the invention, there is provided a computer based system for arranging exchanges between individuals of a first group wishing to exchange a first type of items for a second type of items”. See Summary of the Invention, paragraph 10.” and
“A more apt analogy would be if someone were to claim to have reinvented eBay because she is selling digital/electronic asset, and based her differentiation on the fact that traditionally, eBay sold palpable items and her items are not. Note, the claims focus is on the selling method/platform, not the type of asset – again, the specification states “according to an embodiment of the invention, there is provided a computer based system for arranging exchanges between individuals of a first group wishing to exchange a first type of items for a second type of items”. See Summary of the Invention, paragraph 10.”
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The present invention recites specific manners by which the new technological components improve, not only the User experience, but the technological construct of the Offer (or Order) and manner by which it can be manipulated, as a new coding layer or development, again enhancing a User's functional capability and consequently the Process,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no technologically improvement here. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3698