DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-9 and 15-23 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1, claims 1-9 and 15-13 in the reply filed on November 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2025, 6/16/2025, 2/3/2025, 4/18/2024 and 7/31/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-9 and 15-23 recite subject matter allowable over the prior art of record.
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 1-9 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-9 and 15-23, under Step 2A claims 1 and 15 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly mor.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites:
display a scarce commodity to a purchaser, the scarce commodity being sold by a plurality of vendors and has a baseline tier having a quantity of the scarce commodity purchasable at a baseline price from any of the plurality of vendors;
a regulator computer system, connected to the computer system, that sets the baseline tier quantity of the scarce commodity purchasable by each purchaser;
the processor of the computer system being further configured to:
receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase a particular quantity of the scarce commodity sold by a particular vendor of the plurality of vendors; and
charge, when the particular quantity does not exceed the baseline tier quantity, the baseline price for the particular quantity of the scarce commodity.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)CD). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes providing baseline pricing for a scarce commodity. This represents the performance of a marketing and/or sales activity, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, a display, regulator computer, processor and computer system.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 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 an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In addition to the above, the computer system having a processor represent little more than a field of use and technological environment (e.g. generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use) that indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (see: MPEP 2106.05(h)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does 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 representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 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 claim 1 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 claim 1do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding independent claim 15 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 101 for at least similar rationale.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. For example, claims 2 and 16 include the step of wherein the scarce commodity has a higher tier that has a higher price for the scarce commodity and wherein the processor of the computer system is further configured to charge the higher price when the purchased particular quantity of the scarce commodity exceeds the baseline tier quantity which further describes the business relationship between the buyer and supplier of the scarce commodity.
Claims 3-9 and 17-23 further describe the abstract idea with limitations directed to display a purchasable item to the purchaser, retrieve a predetermined quantity of the scarce commodity previously purchased by the purchaser and charge, sets an allocation of the scarce commodity for each purchaser based on one or more characteristics of each purchaser including an age of the purchaser, a gender of the purchaser and a health status of the purchaser, rebate the difference between the higher tier price and the baseline tier price when the particular quantity of the scarce commodity does not exceed the baseline tier quantity, retrieve the predetermined quantity of the scarce commodity previously purchased by the purchaser by retrieving, from a payment processor, and retrieve the predetermined quantity of the scarce commodity previously purchased by the purchaser by retrieving, from a checkout system of each of the vendors of the plurality of vendors.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,734,698. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases are concerned with displaying a purchasable item to a purchaser, determining a baseline tier for a scarce commodity, communicating the baseline tier, receiving a transaction to purchase a quantity of scarce commodity and charge the baseline price for the particular quantity of the scarce commodity.
As per Claim 1, ‘698 discloses a system, comprising:
a computer system having a processor and a plurality of instructions executed by the processor that is configured to display a scarce commodity to a purchaser, the scarce commodity being sold by a plurality of vendors and has a baseline tier having a quantity of the scarce commodity purchasable at a baseline price from any of the plurality of vendors; a regulator computer system, connected to the computer system, that sets the baseline tier quantity of the scarce commodity purchasable by each purchaser; the processor of the computer system being further configured to:
receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase a particular quantity of the scarce commodity sold by a particular vendor of the plurality of vendors; and
charge, when the particular quantity does not exceed the baseline tier quantity, the baseline price for the particular quantity of the scarce commodity. (Claim 1)
Claim 1 of the instant application teaches a computer system to display a scarce commodity to a purchaser, a regulator computer system that sets a baseline price, receive a transaction for a particular quantity and charge the baseline price for the particular quantity of the scarce commodity. Claim 1 of the instant application fails to disclose storing the baseline tier and the higher tier of the scarce commodity and, for the purchaser, a predetermined quantity of the scarce commodity from an previously purchased purchasable item; receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase the purchasable item having a particular quantity of the scarce commodity sold by a particular vendor of the plurality of vendors.
Claim 1 of the issued patent recites a computer system displays a purchasable item to a purchaser, a regulator computer system, that determines the baseline tier and the higher tier for the scarce commodity and communicates the baseline tier and higher tier for the scarce commodity to the computer system, store the baseline tier and the higher tier of the scarce commodity and, for the purchaser, a predetermined quantity of the scarce commodity from an previously purchased purchasable item; receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase the purchasable item having a particular quantity of the scarce commodity sold by a particular vendor of the plurality of vendors and charge, if a sum of the particular quantity and the stored predetermined quantity for the purchaser do not exceed the baseline tier quantity, the baseline price for the particular quantity of the scarce commodity; and charge, if the sum sun of the particular quantity and the stored predetermined quantity for the purchaser exceeds the baseline tier quantity, the higher price for the particular quantity of the scarce commodity.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the system recited in claim 1 of the instant application to include the ability to store the baseline tier and the higher tier of the scarce commodity and, for the purchaser, a predetermined quantity of the scarce commodity from an previously purchased purchasable item; receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase the purchasable item having a particular quantity of the scarce commodity sold by a particular vendor of the plurality of vendors.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter with substantially similar claim language.
As per Claim 15, ‘698 discloses, a system, comprising:
a computer system having a processor and a plurality of instructions executed by the processor that is configured to display a scarce commodity to a purchaser, the scarce commodity being sold by each of a plurality of vendors in an industry for the scarce commodity and has a baseline tier having a quantity of the scarce commodity purchasable at a baseline price from any of the plurality of vendors;
a regulator computer system, connected to the computer system, that sets the baseline tier quantity of the scarce commodity purchasable by each purchaser;
the processor of the computer system being further configured to:
receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase a particular quantity of the scarce commodity sold by a particular vendor of the plurality of vendors in an industry for the scarce commodity; and
charge, when the particular quantity does not exceed the baseline tier quantity, the baseline price for the particular quantity of the scarce commodity.
Claim 15 of the instant application teaches a computer system to display a scarce commodity to a purchaser, a regulator computer system that sets a baseline price, receive a transaction for a particular quantity and charge the baseline price for the particular quantity of the scarce commodity. Claim 1 of the instant application fails to disclose storing the baseline tier and the higher tier of the scarce commodity and, for the purchaser, a predetermined quantity of the scarce commodity from an previously purchased purchasable item; receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase the purchasable item having a particular quantity of the scarce commodity sold by a particular vendor of the plurality of vendors.
Claim 10 of the issued patent recites a computer system displays a purchasable item to a purchaser, a regulator computer system, that determines the baseline tier and the higher tier for the scarce commodity and communicates the baseline tier and higher tier for the scarce commodity to the computer system, store the baseline tier and the higher tier of the scarce commodity and, for the purchaser, a predetermined quantity of the scarce commodity from an previously purchased purchasable item; receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase the purchasable item having a particular quantity of the scarce commodity sold by a particular vendor of the plurality of vendors and charge, if a sum of the particular quantity and the stored predetermined quantity for the purchaser do not exceed the baseline tier quantity, the baseline price for the particular quantity of the scarce commodity; and charge, if the sum sun of the particular quantity and the stored predetermined quantity for the purchaser exceeds the baseline tier quantity, the higher price for the particular quantity of the scarce commodity.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the system recited in claim 15 of the instant application to include the ability to store the baseline tier and the higher tier of the scarce commodity and, for the purchaser, a predetermined quantity of the scarce commodity from an previously purchased purchasable item; receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase the purchasable item having a particular quantity of the scarce commodity sold by a particular vendor of the plurality of vendors.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter with substantially similar claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sandor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0246190 discusses systems and methods for facilitating trading of emission allowances and offsets among participants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627