DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The office action in response to the claims filed Oct. 15, 2025.
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 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, 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 […]
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 pend 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:
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.
The computing device, one or more processors, one or more storage media and client device with a display, 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 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 2106.0S(a-h).
Dependent claim 2-9, 11, 12, 14-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-10, 13 & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fusz et al. (US20100217680) (“Fusz”) in view of Perrochon et al. (US 8,315,919 Bl) (“Perrochon”).
As per claims 1, 10, & 13, Fusz discloses:
receiving, at a computing device (server 102) and from a client device (buyer workstation 218), a search string for a […] product, the search string having been input by a user of the client device (¶¶ [0037]; figs. 5-6- server system 102 presents 406 the buyer with a product search tool that enables the buyer to search for a desired product using filterable fields including, but not limited to, manufacturer, model, color, etc. The server system 102 also enables the buyer to enter product information…, []);
determining, by the computing device, 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 [...] product (¶¶ [0040]-[0042]; figs. 5-6-…When a buyer logs into, for example, a web page of system 200 and searches 504 for a desired product, the product is displayed to the buyer along with the sales price.);
transmitting, from the computing device and to the client device, the set of one or more search results for display on the client device (¶¶ [0040]- [0042]; figs. 5-6-…When a buyer logs into, for example, a web page of system 200 and searches 504 for a desired product, the product is displayed to the buyer along with the sales price.);
determining, by the computing device, a price (lowest credible price) for at least one of the particular […] products, wherein the determined price is not determined by any particular seller of the [...] product (¶¶ [0040]-[0042]; figs. 5-6- In some embodiments, the lowest credible price is determined automatically for each product by system 200….; Moreover, in some embodiments, a minimum advertised price may be obtained from a manufacturer of the product and entered as the lowest credible price.); and
transmitting, from the computing device and to the client device, the price for the at least one of the particular […] products for display on the client device (¶¶ [0040]-[0042]; figs. 5-6- If the buyer finds the sales price acceptable, the buyer accepts 510 the sales price offer. The buyer then submits 512 payment of the sales price to system 200.).
Claim 13:
Presenting, on a display of a client device, a user interface comprising a search bar (¶¶ [0037]; figs. 5-6);
Receiving, at the client device, user input comprising a search string for a [...] product (¶¶ [0037]; figs. 5-6-);
presenting, on the user interface displayed on the client device, one or more search results, each search result based on the search string input by the user, and each search result corresponding to a particular [...] product (¶¶ [0040]-[0042]; figs. 5-6);
presenting, on the user interface displayed on the client device and along with the one or more search results, a price for at least one of the particular [...] products, wherein the price is not determined by any particular seller of the [...] product (¶¶ [0040]-[0042]; figs. 5-6).
Fusz does not specifically disclose that the product is a metal product.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify to Fusz’s shopping system to offer a wide range of products including metal products, to increase sale and to enhance the user’s shopping experience.
Fusz does not specifically disclose that the determined price does not correspond to any particular seller of the metal product.
Perrochon, however clearly disclose that the determined price does not correspond to any particular seller of the metal product (col. 13, lines 60- col. 14, line 5- the broker 106 determines 404 the defined price at which to offer the item(s) to the customer 102. …the broker 106 sets the price of the item …based on the sale prices of the various merchants 104 (e.g., highest price offered by the merchants 104, the lowest price, the median price, an average of the various prices offered, etc.), based on what is determined to be a reasonable price for that item, based on previously collected data regarding pricing for that item, a combination of these, and so forth.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify to Fusz’s shopping system to incorporate the function of Perrochon’s broker defined prices, to allow customers to be able to purchase a product from a reliable merchant with favorable purchasing details and at a reasonable price, without requiring the customer to invest a substantial amount of time in the purchase transaction (Perrochon: col. 2, lines 23-28).
As per claim 5, Fusz /Perrochon discloses as shown above.
Fusz further discloses:
parsing the search string into one or more constituent alphanumeric characters (¶¶ [0037], [0040], [0044]); and
determining, based on the parsed search string, each of the set of search results based on a correspondence between the one or more constituent alphanumeric characters and an identifier for each particular [...] product corresponding to the set of search results (¶¶ [0037], [0040], [0044]).
As per claims 6 & 16, Fusz /Perrochon discloses as shown above.
Fusz further discloses wherein each search result identifies a product shape of the corresponding [...] product, a type of material of the corresponding [...] product, a dimensional size of the corresponding [...] product, a length of the corresponding [...] product, a grade of the corresponding [...] product, and a weight of the corresponding [...] product (¶¶ [0044]).
The examiner further notes that the way search results are organized to be displayed or shown is a matter of design choice and an obvious modification of the prior art (In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)).
As per claim 7, Fusz /Perrochon discloses as shown above.
Fusz further discloses receiving, at the computing device and from the client device, a purchase order for at least one of the […] products; and transmitting, by the computing device, the purchase order to a plurality of seller computing devices (¶ [0040]).
As per claim 8, Fusz /Perrochon discloses as shown above.
Fusz further discloses receiving, from a first one of the seller computing devices, a request to fulfill the purchase order (winning bid); and transmitting, to the client device, (1) an identification of a seller associated with the first one of the seller computing devices, and (2) an identification of the purchase order as finalized (¶ [0040]).
As per claim 9, Fusz /Perrochon discloses as shown above.
Fusz further discloses receiving the request to fulfill the purchase order after a predetermined mandatory waiting period for the purchase order (¶ [0050]).
As per claim 17, Fusz /Perrochon discloses as shown above.
Fusz further discloses Transmitting, from the client device, the user input to a server device; and Receiving, at the client device and from the server device, the one or more search results (¶¶ [0037]; figs. 5-6).
As per claim 18, Fusz /Perrochon discloses as shown above.
Fusz further discloses receiving additional user input (filterable fields) comprising an updated search string for a metal product; and presenting, on the user interface displayed on the client device, one or more updated search result, each updated search result based on the updated search string input by the user (¶¶ [0037]; figs. 5-6).
As per claim 19, Fusz /Perrochon discloses as shown above.
Fusz further discloses receiving, at the client device, user input comprising a request to generate a purchase order for the […] product; and generating, on the display of the client device, a purchase order interface (¶ [0040]).
As per claim 20, Fusz /Perrochon discloses as shown above.
Fusz further discloses receiving user input on the displayed purchase order interface; transmitting, from the client device to a server device, a purchase order (payment) for the […] product ¶ [0040]).
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 2-4, 11, 12, 14 & 15 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 2-4, 11, 12, 14 & 15 in combination with the limitations of based claims 1, 10 and 13, respectively.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed Oct. 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Page 9): The Office Action references “obtaining health information,” “generating reports,” and “drug resistance,” which are unrelated; this portion should be withdrawn.
The Office acknowledges the inadvertent inclusion of unrelated medical language and strikes that portion. Re-evaluated on the actual claim language concerning metal-product search and pricing, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea (facilitating commercial transactions by providing search results and prices) implemented with generic computing devices. Accordingly, the §101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 10): The claims recite a specific improvement to Internet-based search for metal products by augmenting search results with a customized price that is independent of any seller; this constitutes a technological improvement (citing Spec. ¶¶ 12, 14, 30; Weisner v. Google).
The examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. The current independent claims recite high-level, result-oriented steps—receiving a search string, determining search results, determining a seller-independent price, and transmitting/displaying results—without claiming the specific technical mechanisms alleged to confer the improvement (e.g., particular parsing/tokenization rules, in-memory index structures, per-unit conversion and set-based averaging algorithms). Absent such claim-level technical detail, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of organizing commercial interactions and do not qualify as an improvement to computer functionality under Step 2A, Prong 1. Weisner involved claim language reciting specific mechanisms; here, the asserted technical improvements are described in the specification but are not recited in the claims.
Applicant argues (page 10): USPTO guidance (Aug. 4, 2025 reminders; July 2024 Eligibility Examples) supports eligibility where claims recite specificity corresponding to the described benefits.
The examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. The guidance emphasizes that eligibility turns on claim language that recites a particular way to achieve the outcome. The present claims do not recite concrete, technical steps (e.g., domain-specific token mapping, defined unit-price set formation and averaging, feedback thresholds, or server-enforced timing logic). As drafted, the method is a generic computer implementation of a marketplace workflow and does not integrate any abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Applicant argues (page 10): Augmenting search results with platform-determined prices for metal products is not merely organizing human activity per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. Properly characterized, the claim focus is facilitating commercial transactions by providing product search results and prices. This falls within “certain methods of organizing human activity” (fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions). The recited computing elements perform conventional operations (receive, determine, transmit, display) and, without further technical constraints, do not alter that characterization. Step 2A, Prong 1 is maintained.
Prior art Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection shown above.
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.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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