DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Remarks and Amendments filed on 12/31/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 12, and 16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 3, 4, and 8 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the specification (abstract) objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-18 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Pages 7-8: “The claimed invention is directed towards methods for local retailers to readily obtain and provide "online, real time, inventory and pricing information to consumers" (Application, abstract, paragraph [0003]). As stated by the application, "[s]mall local retailers often struggle to deliver relevant market information, such as available inventory and pricing, to potential consumers." (Subject application, paragraph [0002]). The invention solves an Internet-centric problem: the isolation of small, local retailers from having a competitive online presence to reach local consumers and the ability to dynamically adjust pricing to reflect current market conditions and availability. As in Example 21 of the July 2015 update to the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines, the claimed invention provides "meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea ... to the internet, because they solve an Internet-centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology." Further, similarly to Example 42 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the updated information from the wholesale marketplace is converted by "applying the one or more retailer-specified criteria to the real-time market price, wherein each retailer of a plurality of retailers has different criteria." The updated information is then automatically transmitted and displayed to a specific consumer. As in these examples, the claimed limitations, when taken as an ordered combination, provide unconventional steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular useful application (MPEP 2106 III). Therefore, the claim recites patent eligible subject matter under step 2B.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because obtaining and providing “online, real time, inventory and pricing information to consumers” do not solve the internet-centric problem, but is instead specifically the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the problem of “delivering relevant market information to potential consumer” is related to a problem of business marketing and the claim recites an improvement to the business marketing problem and are not directed to an improvement to computers or technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a) II – “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-10, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of Claims 1-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of Claims 1-18 have been withdrawn.
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 1-2, 5-7, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-18 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for delivering real time retailer-specific online pricing and information) category.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-18, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A method for delivering real time retailer-specific online pricing and information to a consumer comprising:
identifying all possible stock-keeping units (SKUs) for all possible automotive products;
identifying the SKUs for a totality of automotive products that are offered in …, wherein … offers an inventory of currently available products to retailers;
querying … provided by one or more product sources to determine the current availability status of each SKU;
obtaining one or more retailer-specified criteria regarding desired adjustments to a market price of the products;
receiving a query from a consumer through … related to a particular good offered in …;
identifying, via the SKU, a real-time market price for the good from …;
applying the one or more retailer-specified criteria to the real-time market price, wherein each retailer of a plurality of retailers has different criteria;
in response to the application of one or more retailer-specified criteria, … adjusting the real-time market price and availability of the product; and
displaying to the consumer in real time the adjusted market price and availability of the product from a retailer physically local to the consumer.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities and managing personal interactions between people such as following rules or instructions. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “an online wholesale marketplace”, “one or more databases”, “an online platform”, and “automatically”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for delivering real time retailer-specific online pricing and information (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for delivering real time retailer-specific online pricing and information amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 5-7, and 9-18 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the good is a tire” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein identifying the available market comprises updating the inventory in the online marketplace to remove SKUs which are not available and add newly available SKUs” in Claim 5, by defining “comprising periodically and repeatedly querying … such that the inventory in … reflects real-time availability” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein the retailer-specified criteria comprise a specified method for determining a base price of one or more goods offered in the online marketplace” in Claim 7, by defining “wherein the retailer-specified criteria comprise a unit markup” in Claim 9, by defining “wherein the unit markup differs based on one or more factors associated with the good” in Claim 10, by defining “wherein the good is a tire and the factor is rim size” in Claim 11, by defining “wherein the unit markup is based on a base price” in Claim 12, by defining “wherein the unit markup is a percentage of the base price” in Claim 13, by defining “wherein the unit markup is based on one or more factors associated with the good” in Claim 14, by defining “wherein the retailer-specified criteria comprises an added cost for one or more services provided by the retailer” in Claim 15, by defining “wherein the cost for the service is based on a base price determined based on a minimum wholesale price available, a maximum wholesale price available, a median wholesale price available or a mean purchase price available” in Claim 16, by defining “wherein the cost for the service is based on one or more factors associated with the good” in Claim 17, and by defining “wherein the good is a tire and the service is installation” in Claim 18.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 2, 5-7, and 9-18 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 2 and 9-18 do not recite additional elements, Claims 5 and 7 recite an additional element – “the online marketplace”, Claim 6 recites additional elements – “the one or more databases” and “the online marketplace”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 2, 5-7, and 9-18 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 9-18 do not recite additional elements, and Claims 5-7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for delivering real time retailer-specific online pricing and information amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-18 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed an updated search of prior art, including all feature limitations of amended independent claim 1, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claim 1 in its entirety; and in particular, “obtaining one or more retailer-specified criteria regarding desired adjustments to a market price of the products; in response to the application of one or more retailer-specified criteria, automatically adjusting the real-time market price and availability of the product; and displaying to the consumer in real time the adjusted market price and availability of the product from a retailer physically local to the consumer” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art was found to be Chatter in view of Fuller and Caprotti. Chatter teaches a system and method for managing electronic transactions with price-comparison features, with buyer-seller real-time iterative bidding and offering. Fuller teaches a system and method for facilitating communication within a tiered environment. Caprotti teaches a system and method for managing and providing vehicle maintenance. In light of the claim amendments, Examiner updated the search and found that the next closest prior art is Chatter in view of Fuller, Caprotti, and Mourad et al. (US 2005/0010494 A1; hereinafter, “Mourad”). Mourad teaches a system and method for providing online shoppers a realistic assessment of prices by comparing prices among retailers against a Reference Price. However, the combination of references fails to disclose “obtaining one or more retailer-specified criteria regarding desired adjustments to a market price of the products; in response to the application of one or more retailer-specified criteria, automatically adjusting the real-time market price and availability of the product; and displaying to the consumer in real time the adjusted market price and availability of the product from a retailer physically local to the consumer” as recited in Claim 1. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the amended limitations described above.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claim 1, in its entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claim 1, claims 2, 5-7, and 9-18 are novel/non-obvious.
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 TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights