DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (“RCE”) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 13, 2026, has been entered.
Acknowledgments
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The office action in response to the RCE noted above.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18 & 21-24 are pending 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 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18 & 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: claims 1-9 & 13-20 are directed to methods and claims 10-12 are directed to a product (computer readable medium). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1, for example, recites the abstract idea of a trading platform for selling/buying products. This idea is described by the following claim elements:
A method comprising:
receiving, […], a search string for a metal product, the search string having been input by a user of the client device;
determining, […], a set of one or more search results based on the received search string, each search result based on the search string input by the user, and each search result corresponding to a particular metal product;
transmitting, […], the set of one or more search results for display on the client device;
determining, […], a price for at least one of the particular metal products, wherein the price is not determined by any particular seller of the metal product,
wherein the determined price is not determined by any particular seller of the metal product, and the determined price does not correspond to any particular seller of the metal product;
and
transmitting, […], the price for the at least one of the particular [...] products […]
receiving, […] and from the client […], and after transmitting the price and corresponding search result for display on the client device, a purchase order for at least one of the metal products;
transmitting, […], the purchase order to a plurality of seller computing device, wherein the purchase order imposes a predetermined mandatory waiting period during which a seller computing device cannot transmit to the server computing device a request to fulfill the purchase order, and wherein the purchase order imposes the predetermined mandatory waiting period by disabling, during the predetermined mandatory waiting period, a user-interface element of the transmitted purchase order that transmits acceptance from the seller […]; and
receiving, after the predetermined mandatory waiting period for the purchase order and from a first one of the seller […], a request to fulfill the purchase order.
Claim 10 & 13 recites similar limitations.
The above steps fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas as they involve or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. These steps involve steps for selling/buying products and calculating the price for products. Additionally, these steps can be performed mentally or manually (using a pen and a paper) and do not require a machine.
Step 2A, prong 2: claims recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
The combination of claims 1, 10, 13, recite the following additional limitations:
Server computing device & one or more processors & one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions,
client device & display for display on the client device along with the search results for the corresponding metal product,
a plurality of seller computing device, transmits acceptance from the seller computing device to the server computing device
The server computing device, one or more processors, one or more storage media, client device with a display and seller computing device are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on the locating system, or merely uses the locating system as a tool to perform an abstract idea, cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements noted above are recited at a high level of generality, and comprises only a microprocessor and memory to simply perform the generic computer functions of receiving a product search from a client, transmit and display search results to the client, determine a price for a product & transmit and display the product price to the client. Additionally, ¶ [0015], [0042] of the application as filed states that the processors used to implement the claimed inventions are conventional personal/desktop computers (e.g. general-purpose computers). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
[0015] …. The example architecture of Fig. 1 includes a client device 101, such as a personal computer…..The example architecture of Fig. 1 also includes a seller device 103, which may be a personal computer
[0042] … computer system 600 may be … a desktop computer system, a laptop or notebook computer system, …, a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a server, a tablet computer system…
Furthermore, the additional claimed elements, noted above, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements fail to provide a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, ( 4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04, (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
Step 2B: claim fails to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 10, 13 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer system or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer system or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the additional claimed elements, noted above, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements fail to (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; ( 4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the fie Id; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of the MPEP 2106.05(a-h).
Dependent claim 1-6, 8, 11,12, 14-16, 18 & 21 further describe the abstract idea of buying/selling products. These claims do not include new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, these dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 22-24, claims recite the additional elements of presenting of graphical user interface elements including disabled user-interface element, expiration time and waiting period. However, these functions are generic computer functions and do not require more than a generic computer. Therefore, these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, these dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18 & 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18 & 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 1, 10, and 13 recite that “the purchase order imposes the predetermined mandatory waiting period by disabling, during the predetermined mandatory waiting period, a user-interface element of the transmitted purchase order that transmits acceptance from the seller computing device to the server computing device.” The specification fails to provide adequate written description of this specific technical mechanism.
While paragraph [0038] describes that sellers “cannot accept the purchase order” during the waiting period and references Figures 7-8, the specification does not explicitly describe in words that the UI element is disabled, how the UI element is disabled, what triggers the disabling, how the seller device maintains the disabled state, or how the UI element is re-enabled after the waiting period expires.
Figures 7-8 show a temporal progression (Figure 7: “Order Preview, Available to Accept at 3:42 PM”; Figure 8: “ACCEPT ORDER”) but do not show the UI element in a disabled state or provide visual indicators of disabled/enabled states.
Drawings alone are insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement; the specification must describe the invention in words with sufficient clarity (MPEP 2163). The specification describes a functional result (“cannot accept”) but not the specific technical mechanism claimed (“by disabling…a user-interface element”). One skilled in the art could implement “cannot accept” through multiple distinct mechanisms (server-side validation, database constraints, network blocking, etc.), and the specification does not adequately describe which specific mechanism is employed or how the UI disabling mechanism operates.
Therefore, the specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed the specific mechanism of “disabling a user-interface element” to enforce the waiting period, as required by Gentry Gallery. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-12, 14-20 depend from independent claims that fail to satisfy § 112(a) and therefore also fail to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim 22
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to satisfy the written description requirement on two independent grounds. First, Claim 22 depends from Claim 13, which fails § 112(a) as discussed above. Second, Claim 22 independently fails § 112(a) because it recites “the disabled user-interface element” and “a fully functional user-interface element,” but the specification does not describe these specific concepts in words. The specification uses only the general phrase “any seller cannot accept the purchase order” without explaining what constitutes a “disabled” UI element or a “fully functional” UI element. Figures 7-8 show different UI states but do not explicitly label or describe disabled/enabled states or provide visual indicators distinguishing these states. Therefore, Claim 22 fails to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim 23
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as depending from Claim 22, which independently fails to satisfy the written description requirement. Claim 22 recites “the disabled user-interface element” and “a fully functional user-interface element” without adequate written description in the specification, as discussed above. Since Claim 23 depends from the deficient Claim 22, Claim 23 also fails to satisfy § 112(a). Additionally, Claim 23 recites “an expiration time of the predetermined mandatory waiting period,” which is only implicitly disclosed in the specification (Figure 7 shows “Available to Accept at 3:42 PM” but does not explicitly describe presenting an expiration time as a separate technical element). Therefore, Claim 23 fails to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim 24
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as depending from Claim 23, which fails to satisfy the written description requirement. Claim 24 recites “present…the expiration time on the disabled user-interface element during the predetermined mandatory waiting period,” but the specification does not describe how the expiration time is presented on the disabled UI element or what constitutes the “disabled user-interface element.” The specification does not provide adequate written description of the specific technical mechanism of displaying timing information on a disabled UI element. Since Claim 24 depends from the deficient Claim 23, which depends from the deficient Claim 22, which depends from the deficient Claim 13, Claim 24 fails to satisfy § 112(a).
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18 & 21-24 are believed to be free of prior art.
Closest prior art of record includes Fusz, Woodfin, Perrochon & Loar. None of the references fairly discloses the subject matter of claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18 & 21-24.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicants’ arguments filed April 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument (page 9-10):
“First, the amended claims recite features that cannot be performed by any mental process or method of organizing human activity…Clearly, a mere mental process or method of organizing human activity is incapable of affecting the communications between two computing devices on a network and therefore Claim 1 does not merely recite an abstract idea.”
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The fact that a limitation affects device-to-device communication does not change the characterization of the abstract idea. Under Alice, implementing an abstract idea on a computer system—even if the implementation involves multiple devices or network communication—does not satisfy § 101. The abstract idea remains “facilitating commercial transactions by managing order fulfillment.”
Additionally, the claim recites WHAT is done (“a seller computing device cannot transmit…a request”) but not HOW it is done. The claim does not recite the specific technical mechanisms (e.g., state management, communication protocols, data structures, timer logic) that would constitute “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Under Enfish, claims reciting only the functional result without the specific technical mechanism do not satisfy § 101.
Applicant argument (page 10):
“In addition, amended Claim 1 further recites that ‘the purchase order imposes the predetermined mandatory waiting period by disabling, during the predetermined mandatory waiting period, a user-interface element of the transmitted purchase order that transmits acceptance from the seller computing device to the server computing device.’ Again, these specific features defining how the mandatory waiting period is imposed between the computing devices cannot be performed by a mere mental process or organizing human activity.”
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. While the claim recites that the waiting period is imposed “by disabling…a user-interface element,” this describes the functional result, not the specific technical mechanism. Disabling and enabling UI elements are generic computer functions. The claim does not recite HOW the UI element is disabled, WHAT triggers the disabling, or HOW the disabled state is maintained across multiple seller devices. The fact that the UI element is “tied to” a specific communication function does not change this analysis.
Applicant argument (page 10):
“Figs. 7-8 of this Application illustrate an example implementation of these features. For instance, Fig. 8 illustrates an ‘ACCEPT ORDER’ element that results in the seller computing device transmitting an acceptance of that purchase order to the server computing device. But Fig. 7 illustrates that during the mandatory waiting period, this UI element is disabled and, in the example of Fig. 7, replaced with an ‘Order Preview’ element that identifies the expiration of the predetermined waiting period.”
Examiner’s Response:
While Figures 7-8 show different UI states (disabled vs. enabled), they do not describe the specific technical mechanisms that implement these states. The figures show the functional result (different UI presentations) but not the technical implementation (how the UI element is disabled, what triggers it, how the state is maintained).
Additionally, the specification does not adequately describe the specific mechanisms for disabling and re-enabling the UI element. Even assuming adequate specification support, disabling/enabling UI elements remains a generic computer function that does not satisfy § 101.
Applicant argument (page 11):
“The mandatory waiting period is imposed not by, e.g., merely instructing a seller to hold off on transmitting fulfillment requests, but rather the mandatory waiting period is imposed via technical means, by disabling and enabling the fulfillment-request communication capabilities between the devices as a result of disabling and enabling the purchase-order UI element that initiates the acceptance communication from the seller computing device to the server computing device.”
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s argument conflates “practical application” with “technical implementation.” Under Alice and Mayo, implementing an abstract idea using technical means does not satisfy § 101. The abstract idea is “facilitating commercial transactions by managing order fulfillment.” The mandatory waiting period is a business rule for order management. Implementing this business rule by disabling UI elements does not transform it into a patent-eligible invention.
While Applicant characterizes the limitation as “disabling and enabling the fulfillment-request communication capabilities,” the claim does not recite the specific technical mechanisms that implement this disabling/enabling. The claim only recites the functional result (that a seller device “cannot transmit…a request” during the waiting period). This is a business constraint, not a technical improvement. Under Alice, implementing a business constraint on a generic computer does not satisfy § 101.
Prior art Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection have been considered and are persuasive. The §103 prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and is listed in the attached form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, all documents listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
US 7680696 B1
A method for facilitating the ordering of two or more products, wherein a data repository receives from each respective buyer of two or more buyers at least two respective orders for purchase quantities of units of at least two products of said two or more products. The data repository calculates, substantially contemporaneously with the step of receiving, a composite order comprising the total units of each of said two or more products specified in each respective order received from each respective buyer. A near valid order quantity is determined with reference to said total units, and the purchase quantity is adjusted with reference to the total units taken with respect to the near valid order quantity.
US20150379596
A system for matching buyers and sellers, and in particular, a system that matches database representations of purchase “Intentions” from one or more buyers with items listed as available in a database representing sellers' inventory. In some embodiments, the buyers' Intentions are pooled into a “Groupbuy” that a single Seller can fulfill. In some embodiments, the system employs matching algorithms to match individual Buyers (or pooled Buyers in a Groupbuy) with Sellers. In some embodiments, an individual Buyer may initiate a Groupbuy, and other Buyers may join the Groupbuy without the execution of any matching algorithms. In some embodiments, the system additionally manages payment transactions, and provides vouchers to the Buyers to certify they have paid and can take delivery of the purchased product. In some embodiments, the system is implemented on a central server and buyers and sellers access portions of the data through the Internet.
US20240428317
A distributed computing system for accomplishing a transaction through a proxy system includes a product database, a supplier database, a supplier-product mapping database and a customer profile database. A client module including a client-side component is configured to execute on a client device associated with at least one of the customers, the client module including a browsing observation service module configured to recognize an item of interest based on content being displayed on the client device and correlate a unique item identifier with the item of interest based on queries to the databases and a browsing augmentation service module configured to present an additional user interface on the client device, which augments a user interface of the supplier content and permits purchase of the item of interest from one of the suppliers.
US20100217680
A method of operating an online dynamic-bidding exchange for use in a reverse auction. The exchange includes a server system that includes a database, and a client system coupled to the server system via a communications network. The method includes determining a lowest credible price of a product, and receiving one or more offers to sell the product from a seller and storing the offers to sell in the database, wherein the offers to sell is embodied as a reserve price. The method also includes determining a sales price of the product based on a comparison of the lowest credible price and the competing reserve prices, transmitting the sales price from the server system to the client system, and displaying the sales price to a buyer via the client system.
US 20160048897 A1
[0022] The application server(s) 118 may also include one or more dynamic price range determination system(s) 132 to dynamically determine popular price ranges for one or more items based on one or more received search queries. In one embodiment, the dynamic price range determination system(s) 132 may determine one or more popular price ranges for items related to a given search query. In an alternative embodiment, the dynamic price range system(s) 132 and the marketplace system(s) 120 can be included in the same system.
US 20220198496 A1
A product pricing system receives product data associated with a candidate product. The product data includes a product designation and a first product attribute. The first product attribute is one of a plurality of different product attributes associated with a product attribute type. The product pricing system retrieves historical product data associated with a first plurality of previously sold products having the first product attribute from a historical product database. The historical product data includes a product price associated with each of the first plurality of previously sold products. The product pricing system generates a historical product data set including the first plurality of previously sold products, generates a candidate product price based on an average of the product prices associated with the first plurality of previously sold products in the historical product data set, and assigns the candidate product price to the candidate product.
US 20050283426 A1
An anonymous trading system comprises an interconnected network of broking nodes arranged in cliques which receive buy and sell orders from trader terminals via connected trading engines and which match persistent orders, executed deals and distribute price information to trader terminals. The system has the ability for a trader to call out for a quote (request for a quote) anonymously. RFQs are only transmitted on to potential counterparties if they are within a predetermined price range. The RFQs include a price at which the requesting party is willing to deal, but this price is not communicated potential counterparties. Counterparty responses are matches on a time, price basis and non-matched responses may be matched with themselves. Similarly, non-matched RFQs may be matched with each other.
US 20200184534 A1
A method implemented by at least one computing device for enhancing a database of records corresponding to plural items, each item being assigned to a category, each item having a corresponding item record recorded in the database, each item record including a set of attributes that represent features of the item, each attribute being assigned a corresponding scalar value that represents a state of the corresponding attribute, the method comprising: retrieving from the database, by at least one computing device, the sets of attributes and the corresponding scalar values for each attribute; determining, by at least one computing device, a competitive index for one or more of the attributes based on the corresponding scalar values, wherein the competitive index is determined by, for each of the attributes; collecting the corresponding scalar values from plural sets of attributes corresponding to plural items to create a set of scalar values for the attribute; calculating a percentile rank of each scalar value in the set of scalar values scalar value, wherein the maximum percentile rank and the minimum percentile rank are not the same; calculating a numerical value of a percentile rank range of each scalar value; determining a maximum percentile rank range and a minimum percentile rank range of the percentile rank ranges; for each scalar value, calculating an average of the numerical value of the maximum percentile rank range and the minimum percentile rank range to thereby obtain the competitive index; and storing, in a database, the competitive index for each attribute of a corresponding item as an enhanced attribute value in association with the attribute to thereby create an enhanced item record for the item, whereby the enhance item record can be used to evaluate the item with respect to other items by a computing device in a more accurate manner.
US20100217680-
A method of operating an online dynamic-bidding exchange for use in a reverse auction. The exchange includes a server system that includes a database, and a client system coupled to the server system via a communications network. The method includes determining a lowest credible price of a product, and receiving one or more offers to sell the product from a seller and storing the offers to sell in the database, wherein the offers to sell is embodied as a reserve price. The method also includes determining a sales price of the product based on a comparison of the lowest credible price and the competing reserve prices, transmitting the sales price from the server system to the client system, and displaying the sales price to a buyer via the client system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMON OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-1813. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM- 5 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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at (571) 272-8105. 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.
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
