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 .
Priority
Applicant has not claimed priority to another application. Application 18/244,667 was filed 9/11/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 9/11/2023 was previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 7/8/2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-16, 21, and 22 have been amended. Claims 17-20 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 1-16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the device, as claimed in claims 1-9, are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claims 10-16, are directed to a process, and the non-transitory computer-readable media, as claimed in claims 21-24, are directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receive at least a portion of content displayed, wherein the content is associated with an auction;
process the content displayed to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction on the auction, wherein the bid information comprises:
an auction end time,
a maximum bid amount, and
one or more item identifiers;
after the auction end time has elapsed, determine, via the auction, auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction;
receive, from a transactions history and based on the auction end time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user;
receive account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user;
determine, based on a determination of an estimated payment amount based on the maximum bid amount and predicted shipping costs associated with the location, a range of possible transaction values;
select, based on the winning bid amount and based on comparing the range of possible transaction values to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and
output an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction.
Claim 10 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving at least a portion of content displayed, wherein the content is associated with an auction;
processing the content displayed to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction on the auction, wherein the bid information comprises:
an auction end time,
a maximum bid amount, and
one or more item identifiers;
after the auction end time has elapsed, determining via the auction, auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction;
receiving from a transactions history, and based on the auction end time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user;
receiving account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user;
determining, based on a determination of an estimated payment amount, a range of possible transaction values, wherein the estimated payment amount is based on:
the maximum bid amount,
predicted shipping costs associated with the location, and
tax information corresponding to the location;
selecting based on the winning bid amount, and based on comparing the range of possible transaction values to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and
outputting an association between:
the first financial transaction, and
at least a portion of the one or more item identifiers.
Independent claim 21 recites the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claim 21 as described above for independent claim 1.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 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).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in claims 1, 10, and 21 are certain methods of organizing human activity because associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions is both managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because it is following rules or instructions and a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 21 recite 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). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computing device configured to associate past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions, the computing device comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to:
receive, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device and via a network, at least a portion of content displayed via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser application executing on the user computing device, wherein the content is associated with an auction website;
process the content displayed via the DOM to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction on the auction website, wherein the bid information comprises:
an auction end time,
a maximum bid amount, and
one or more item identifiers;
after the auction end time has elapsed, determine, via the auction website, auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction;
receive, from a transactions history database and based on the auction end time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user;
receive account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user;
determine, based on a determination of an estimated payment amount based on the maximum bid amount and predicted shipping costs associated with the location, a range of possible transaction values;
select, based on the winning bid amount and based on comparing the range of possible transaction values to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and
output, in a user interface, an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction.
In this case, representative claim 10 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A method for associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device, and via a network, at least a portion of content displayed via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser application executing on the user computing device, wherein the content is associated with an auction website;
processing, by the computing device, the content displayed via the DOM to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction on the auction website, wherein the bid information comprises:
an auction end time,
a maximum bid amount, and
one or more item identifiers;
after the auction end time has elapsed, determining, by the computing device and via the auction website, auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction;
receiving, by the computing device, from a transactions history database, and based on the auction end time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user;
receiving, by the computing device, account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user;
determining, by the computing device based on a determination of an estimated payment amount, a range of possible transaction values, wherein the estimated payment amount is based on:
the maximum bid amount,
predicted shipping costs associated with the location, and
tax information corresponding to the location;
selecting, by the computing device, based on the winning bid amount, and based on comparing the range of possible transaction values to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and
outputting, by the computing device and in a user interface, an association between:
the first financial transaction, and
at least a portion of the one or more item identifiers.
In this case, representative claim 21 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions configured to associate past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to:
receive, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device and via a network, at least a portion of content displayed via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser application executing on the user computing device, wherein the content is associated with an auction website;
process the content displayed via the DOM to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction on the auction website, wherein the bid information comprises:
an auction end time,
a maximum bid amount, and
one or more item identifiers;
after the auction end time has elapsed, determine, via the auction website, auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction;
receive, from a transactions history database and based on the auction end time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user;
receive account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user;
determine, based on a determination of an estimated payment amount based on the maximum bid amount and predicted shipping costs associated with the location, a range of possible transaction values;
select, based on the winning bid amount and based on comparing the range of possible transaction values to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and
output, in a user interface, an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device“ process information, receive information “from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device and via a network”, display information “via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser executing on the user computing device“ on a “website”, receive information from a “database”, output information “in a user interface”, receive information “by a computing device, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device, and via a network”, outputting information “by the computing device and in a user interface”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, outputting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 21 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs [0024]- [0028], [0032]-[00471]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving and outputting steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 10, and 21 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate 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). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 10, and 21, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 21 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 21 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 21 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 10, and 21 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 10, and 21 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 10, and 21.
Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24 set forth:
select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to: determine that a difference between a first transaction amount associated with the first financial transaction and the range of possible transaction values satisfies a threshold.
determine the estimated payment amount further based on tax information corresponding to the location.
select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to: determine that the first financial transaction indicates a merchant associated with the auction website.
select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to: determine, based on the auction end time, a predicted payment time associated with the first bid; and filter, based on the predicted payment time, the plurality of different candidate financial transactions.
determine, based on comparing a second range of possible transaction values associated with a second bid to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, that the second bid is not associated with any of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and delete, from storage, second bid information associated with the second bid.
determine the auction information by causing the computing device to :determine, via the auction website, that a username associated with the user is indicated as winning the first auction.
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to: determine that a first transaction amount associated with the first financial transaction is lower than a sum of the maximum bid amount, the predicted shipping costs, and tax information corresponding to the location.
wherein the bid information comprises one or more item identifiers, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to output an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to: output, in the user interface, at least a portion of the one or more item identifiers
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 10, and 21, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1, 10, and 21.
Thus, dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira et al. (US 2021/0004880 A1 [previously recited]) in view of Roberts (US 2011/0087554 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 1, Benkreira et al., hereinafter Benkreira, discloses a computing device configured to associate past activity with subsequent financial transactions (Figs. 1, 5, and 6; abstract), the computing device comprising:
one or more processors (Figs. 1, 5, and 6; ¶¶0075-0076); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Figs. 1, 5, and 6; ¶¶0075-0076), cause the computing device to:
receive, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device and via a network, at least a portion of content displayed via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser application executing on the user computing device, wherein the content is associated with an auction website (Figs. 1, 3-6; ¶¶0025-0028 in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033 [Ebay is comparable to an auction website]);
process the content displayed via the DOM to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on the auction website (Figs. 2D, 4; ¶¶0033-0040 [Examiner notes receipt information is comparable to bid information] in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033), wherein the bid information comprises:
an time (Fig. 2D; ¶¶0038-0040),
a bid amount (¶¶0038-0040 [price]), and
one or more item identifiers (¶¶0038-0040 [item name]);
after the time has elapsed, determine, via the auction website, information that indicates a winning bid amount (Fig. 2D; ¶0037, ¶¶0043-0046, ¶¶0063-0067 in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033);
receive, from a transactions history database and based on the time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user (Fig. 4; ¶¶0040-0043, ¶¶0070-0071);
receive account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user (¶¶0042-0050);
determine, based on a determination of an estimated payment amount based on the bid amount and predicted shipping costs associated with the location, a range of possible transaction values (¶¶0042-0050; Examiner notes threshold (e.g., +/-1 dollar, +/- 3 percent of total amount, etc.) is comparable to a range of possible transaction values in view of the instant Specification description of a range of possible transaction values in paragraph [0070]);
select, based on the winning bid amount and based on comparing the range of possible transaction values to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions (Fig. 4; ¶¶0071-0073 in view of ¶¶0042-0050); and
output, in a user interface, an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0073-0074).
While Benkreira discloses an auction website (¶0027 and ¶0033) and a bid to purchase a product (¶¶0033-0040), Benkreira does not explicitly disclose auction bidding activity, a maximum bid amount, determining information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction, wherein bid information includes an auction end time, and after the end time has elapsed, determine auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction. However, in the field of online auctions (abstract), Roberts teaches auction bidding activity that includes a first bid placed by a user of an auction and an auction end time, a maximum bid amount, and after the end time has elapsed, determining information that indicates a winning bid (Figs. 5A-5B; ¶0027, ¶¶0052-0056). The system of Roberts is applicable to the system of Benkreira as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking activity related to orders that are placed over the Internet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tracked purchases as taught by Benkreira with the auction activity including a maximum bid amount as taught by Roberts. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Benkreira in order to allow a buyer to set price terms with the total max they are willing to pay (¶0027) and track purchases for goods and services in auction marketplaces and internet-based auctions (¶0006, ¶0052).
Regarding claim 2, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to:
determine that a difference between a first transaction amount associated with the first financial transaction and range of possible transaction values satisfies a threshold (¶¶0041-0050).
Regarding claim 3, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to determine the estimated payment amount further based on tax information corresponding to the location (¶¶0047-0049).
Regarding claim 4, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to:
determine that the first financial transaction indicates a merchant associated with the auction website (¶¶0041-0045).
Regarding claim 5, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to:
determine, based on the time, a predicted payment time associated with the first bid (¶¶0041-0045); and
filter, based on the predicted payment time, the plurality of different candidate financial transactions (¶¶0041-0045).
Roberts further teaches an auction end time (Figs. 5A-5B; ¶¶0052-0056). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Benkreira are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to determine the information by causing the computing device to:
determine, via the auction website, that a username associated with the user is indicated as winning the first auction (Fig. 2C; ¶¶0061-0062 in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033).
Roberts further teaches an auction information (Figs. 5A-5B; ¶¶0052-0056). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Benkreira are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1. While Benkreira further discloses wherein the bid amount comprises a bid amount (¶¶0038-0040), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to:
determine that a first transaction amount associated with the first financial transaction corresponding to the location (Fig. 4; ¶¶0071-0073), Benkreira does not explicitly disclose determining an amount is lower than a sum of the maximum bid amount, the predicted shipping costs, and tax information. However, Roberts further teaches a maximum bid amount and determining if an amount is lower than a sum of the maximum bid amount, the predicted shipping costs, and tax information corresponding to the location (¶0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bid amount as taught by Benkreira with the max bid amount lower than a sum of max bid amount, shipping costs, and tax information as taught by Roberts. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Benkreira in order to allow a buyer to set price terms with the total max they are willing to pay (¶0027).
Regarding claim 9, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the bid information comprises one or more item identifiers (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0033-0040, ¶¶0073-0074), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to output an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to:
output, in the user interface, at least a portion of the one or more item identifiers (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0073-0074).
Regarding claim 10, Benkreira discloses a method for associating past activity with subsequent financial transactions (abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device, and via a network, at least a portion of content displayed via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser application executing on the user computing device, wherein the content is associated with an auction website (Figs. 1, 3-6; ¶¶0025-0028 in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033);
processing, by the computing device, the content displayed via the DOM to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on the auction website (Figs. 2D, 4; ¶¶0033-0040 [Examiner notes receipt information is comparable to bid information] in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033), wherein the bid information comprises:
an time (Fig. 2D; ¶¶0038-0040),
a bid amount (¶¶0038-0040 [price]), and
one or more item identifiers (¶¶0038-0040 [item name]);
after the time has elapsed, determining, by the computing device and via the auction website, information that indicates a winning bid amount (Fig. 2D; ¶0037, ¶¶0043-0046, ¶¶0063-0067 in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033);
receiving, by the computing device, from a transactions history database, and based on the time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user (Fig. 4; ¶¶0040-0043, ¶¶0070-0071);
receiving, by the computing device, account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user (¶¶0042-0050);
determining, by the computing device based on a determination of an estimated payment amount, a range of possible transaction values(¶¶0042-0050; Examiner notes threshold (e.g., +/-1 dollar, +/- 3 percent of total amount, etc.) is comparable to a range of possible transaction values in view of the instant Specification description of a range of possible transaction values in paragraph [0070]), wherein the estimated payment amount is based on:
the bid amount (¶¶0042-0050),
predicted shipping costs associated with the location (¶¶0042-0050), and
tax information corresponding to the location (¶¶0042-0050);
selecting, by the computing device, based on the winning bid amount, and based on comparing the range of possible transaction values to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions (Fig. 4; ¶¶0071-0073 in view of ¶¶0042-0050); and
outputting, by the computing device and in a user interface, an association (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0073-0074) between:
the first financial transaction (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0073-0074), and
at least a portion of the one or more item identifiers (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0073-0074).
While Benkreira discloses an auction website (¶0027 and ¶0033) and a bid to purchase a product (¶¶0033-0040), Benkreira does not explicitly disclose auction bidding activity, a maximum bid amount, determining information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction, wherein bid information includes an auction end time, and after the end time has elapsed, determine auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction. However, in the field of online auctions (abstract), Roberts teaches auction bidding activity that includes a first bid placed by a user of an auction and an auction end time, a maximum bid amount, and after the end time has elapsed, determining information that indicates a winning bid (Figs. 5A-5B; ¶0027, ¶¶0052-0056). The steps of Roberts are applicable to the method of Benkreira as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking activity related to orders that are placed over the Internet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tracked purchases as taught by Benkreira with the auction activity including a maximum bid amount as taught by Roberts. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Benkreira in order to allow a buyer to set price terms with the total max they are willing to pay (¶0027) and track purchases for goods and services in auction marketplaces and internet-based auctions (¶0006, ¶0052).
Regarding claims 11-16, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claims 2 and 4-8, except claims 11-16 are directed to a process depending from claim 10 while claims 2 and 4-8 are machines depending from claim 1. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 2 and 4-8, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 11-16 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 2 and 4-8.
Regarding claims 21-24, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claims 1-4, except claims 21-24 are directed to articles of manufacture while claims 1-4 are directed to a machine. The added element of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions” is also taught by Benkreira (¶0097). Therefore, claims 21-24 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 1-4.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira in view of Roberts and Tarditi, JR et al. (US 2007/0169030 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 6, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1. While Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to:
determine, based on comparing a second range of possible transaction values associated with a second bid to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, that the second bid is associated with any of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions (¶¶0041-0050); and
delete, from storage, bid information (¶0039),
Benkreira in view of Roberts does not explicitly teach that the second bid is not associated with any of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions and deleting second bid information associated with the second bid. However, in the field of transactional memory systems (abstract), Tarditi, JR et al., hereinafter Tarditi, teaches matching the numbers of each entry and object, and if the numbers do not match, the transaction is invalid and deletes the log entry for that transaction (Fig. 23; ¶0222). The system of Tarditi is applicable to the system of Benkreira in view of Roberts as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking activity related to transactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the matching and removing information as taught by Benkreira in view of Roberts with the deleting of unmatched information as taught by Tarditi. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Benkreira in view of Roberts in order to delete invalid log entries (¶0222).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 12-14 of the Remarks filed 7/8/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims recite eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, on page 12, Applicant argues the amended claims are eligible over Step 2A, prong 1 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that in Prong One examiner evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth previously. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, “associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions” is both managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because it is following rules or instructions and “associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions” is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. For example, the independent claims recite processing information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first action, which is considered a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity or business relation. Additionally, the claims recite a data reconciliation process by comparing the range of possible transaction values to each transaction amount of the plurality of candidate financial transactions to select a first financial transaction of the plurality of candidate financial transactions which is considered managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because it is following rules or instructions. Further, “associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions” is an abstract idea known from the pre-Internet world and the claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.
Moreover, Applicant’s own assertion that the claims are directed towards “determining a winning bid amount via the auction, receiving candidate financial transactions from a transactions history, determining a range of possible transaction values based on an estimated payment amount based on shipping costs and location, and/or selecting a matching transaction by comparing the range of possible transaction values to candidate transactions” is itself an abstract idea (and is encompassed within the abstract idea of “associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions”) and underscores the Examiner’s findings under Prong One. Examiner notes the arguments directed to the additional elements such as a web browser plugin, a web browser application executing on a user computing device, a network, a Document Object Model (DOM), a website, and database as well as the arguments directed to practical applications and computer improvements is analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two and not within Step 2A, Prong One.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that the amended claim integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues the claims “improve the functioning of computers by improving the manner with which computers collect, process, and associate data.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner agrees that the amended limitations which include processors, a web browser plugin of a web browser application, a Document Object Model (DOM) of a web browser application executing on a user device, a database, and a user interface do not fall within the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees that these elements impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As claimed, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facility the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of the claimed additional elements (see Figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs [0024]- [0028], [0032]-[00471]).
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to web scraping, data processing, and/or the manner with which computers collect, process, and associate data, and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions.
The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is akin to ineligible decisions such as Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions). The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field.
The specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art the Applicant has provided an improvement to “collect, process, and associate data.” Nor does the specification provide technical detail of how web browser plugin-based DOM scraping provides a technical improvement to collecting, processing, and associating data differently than from generic devices collect, process, and associate data (i.e., the specification merely sets forth at a high level of generality the use of web browser plugin-based DOM scraping executing on a processor for receiving information, processing information, storing information, and displaying information on generic computing devices via a browser plug-in).
There is no indication from either the claims or the specification that the invention seeks to modify conventional operation of any such technology. Here again, the Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. While Applicant argues paragraph [0022] of the Specification provides support for an improvement to computers, Examiner notes at best the argued paragraph [0022] of the Specification is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field. Additionally, paragraph [0022] recites the improvement is applying a manual process on a computer for faster processing, which is not patent eligible.
[0022] “The present disclosure leverages web browser plugin-based DOM scraping to collect information far in advance of subsequent transactions, such that the information might be later associated. This significantly expedites alternative processes via which this association might be generated. For example, rather than forcing users to manually indicate which transactions are associated with certain bids, the present system automates this process through web browser plugin-based DOM scraping.”
While Applicant argues the “present disclosure could not be performed by a human being and/or with pen-and-paper at least because the present disclosure is fundamentally rooted in technology such as web browser plugins, DOM scraping, and the like”, Examiner disagrees. While the invention may use web browser plugins and DOM scrapping to collect/receive data, Applicant does not asserted that they have improved web browser plugins and/or DOM scrapping itself and merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, outputting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of the claims are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs [0024]- [0028], [0032]-[00471]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field.
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process. As currently recited, the instant claims are directed to improving the business task of providing “associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions” (i.e., the abstract idea).
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the amended claims provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the claimed additional elements were evaluated 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). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of the claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. The background also states that the generic processor performs these limitations at a high level of generality. This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer.
Further, as referenced to both previously and above, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) outlines various computer functions that he courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Most notably, the Examiner pointed out that the claimed invention utilized receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers.
While Applicant further argues on page 14 that the amended claims “specify how the system correlates bid data with financial transactions” by “describing non-conventional and non-generic series of interrelated steps,” Examiner notes these arguments are directed to the abstract idea and not the additional elements. MPEP 2106.04(d) uses the term additional elements to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Abstract ideas are not patent eligible, therefore this limitation cannot provide integration.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually and do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 10-11 of the Remarks filed 7/08/2026, with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered but are unpersuasive and moot in view of the new 35 USC §103 rejections applied to applicant’s amended claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., describe a separation between a pre-transaction ceiling and a post-transaction actual price) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The instant claims require processing bid information, including a maximum bid amount and “after the auction end time has elapsed,” determining auction information that indicates a winning bid amount. As currently claimed, using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the maximum bid amount need not be different from a post-transaction actual price if placed by the user. Accordingly, Examiner maintains Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the ”determination” of a range of possible transaction values and “selection” of a first financial transaction as described in rejection of the claims above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As noted previously and in the full rejection of the amended claims above, Benkreira disclosed processing content to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a website (Figs. 2D, 4; ¶¶0033-0040 [Examiner notes receipt information is comparable to bid information] in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033) wherein the bid information comprises a bid amount (¶¶0038-0040 [price]) and determining, based on a determination of an estimated payment amount based on the bid amount and predicted shipping costs associated with the location, a range of possible transaction values (¶¶0042-0050; Examiner notes threshold (e.g., +/-1 dollar, +/- 3 percent of total amount, etc.) is comparable to a range of possible transaction values in view of the instant Specification description of a range of possible transaction values in paragraph [0070]).
As noted previously, in the full rejection of the claims above, and acknowledged on page 10 of Applicant’s remarks, “Benkreira describes matching receipt prices (e.g., known transaction amounts) to financial transactions, indicating that the price on the receipt is the price the user paid. Benkreira describes comparing the known receipt price (e.g., with estimated tax and shipping costs) with a tolerance threshold (e.g., ±$1, ±3%) to account for minor posting discrepancies. Benkreira at [0043].” Examiner notes the instant Specification in paragraph [0070] describes:
[0070] Additionally and/or alternatively, there is a matching financial transaction may be based on an estimated payment range. Transactions are, for various reasons (e.g., unpredictable shipping costs, currency conversion uncertainties) unlikely to be perfectly predictable. In turn, a range of possible transaction values might be determined based on the estimated payment amount. Such a range might be represented as a percentage (e.g., a range comprising 95% to 105% of the estimated payment amount), a dollar threshold (e.g., a range beginning at the estimated payment amount minus ten dollars and ending at the estimated payment amount plus ten dollars), or the like. In this manner, determining whether there is a matching financial transaction may be based on determining that a difference between a transaction amount and the estimated payment amount satisfies some threshold.
Further, as noted previously, in the full rejection of the claims above, and acknowledged on page 11 of Applicant’s remarks, Roberts describes generic auction concepts (e.g., that auctions have time periods and produce winners) and describes a conventional checkout that would yield a system that applies the receipt-capture system to auction receipts, which would capture receipt data after an auction purchase is completed.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended claims are encompassed within Benkreira in view of Roberts and maintains the 103 rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference A of the Notice of References Cited Yang et al. (US 2018/0342019 A1) discloses extracting information from a current webpage of a user and storing the extracted information using a Document Object Model (DOM) structure.
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 LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764 and/or the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights