DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 6/29/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
1. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-17 are directed to facilitating pre-orders, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-15 recite a method and at least one step. Claim 16 recites a system with a processor and a memory. Claim 17 recites a computer storage medium explicitly defined by the specification as non-transitory. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus, manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 16, the claim sets forth a process in which pre-orders for products are facilitated, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
recording IP addresses associated with successful bids made by users on an online marketplace;
receive, from a seller, a request to list a product for pre-order in an marketplace managed by a retailer;
create, by the retailer, a pre-order listing for the product in the marketplace in response to receiving the request from the seller;
receiving, via the pre-order listing, a first bid including a first bidding price from a first registered buyer and a second bid including a second bidding price from a second registered buyer, wherein the second bidding price is higher than the first bidding price;
identifying a first user score assigned to the first registered buyer and a second user score assigned to the second registered buyer, wherein the first user score is at least partially based on a first number of successful bids recorded for a first IP address associated with the first bid and the second user score is at least partially based on a second number of successful bids recorded for a second IP address associated with the second bid, wherein the first user score is higher than the second user score;
generating a prioritized list of bids including the first bid and the second bid, wherein the first bid is prioritized over the second bid based on the first user score being higher than the second user score;
restricting, from the prioritized list of bids, bids from IP addresses associated with more than a predefined number of bids;
sending, to the seller, the prioritized list of bids;
receiving, from the seller, a confirmation that the prioritized list of bids is acceptable; and
requesting, confirmation of the first bid from the first registered buyer in response to receiving the confirmation.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to prioritize received pre-order bids in order to facilitate a transaction for a pre-order listing. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 16 does recite additional elements:
a processor;
a memory comprising computer program code, the memory and the computer program code configured to cause the processor to
online
by a processor to a user database
by the processor
through the online marketplace
by the processor from the user database
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0030]-[0033] make clear that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 1 and 17 are parallel in scope to claim 16 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-15
Claims 2-15 set forth further recitations that merely embellish the abstract idea of facilitating pre-orders, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. The claims set forth no further additional limitations beyond those set forth in claims 1 and 16. As such, they not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, and are persuasive in light of the present amendments. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant initially asserts:
As amended, claim 1 does not recite the alleged abstract idea, but instead recites features necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in online marketplaces. Traditional online marketplaces are increasingly being infiltrated by non-human "bot" bidders. Specification, para. [0012]. Bot buyers are undesirable to both purchasers and sellers, as limited-item products are provided to non-interested, non-human buyers, who often turn around and resell the item to truly interested parties at a marked-up price. Id. at paras. [0001] and [0012]. Traditional systems have been unable to effectively curb bot usage from their online marketplaces.
The claimed system recites features necessarily rooted in computer technologies that provide improvements in limiting bot usage from online marketplaces. As amended, claim 1 recites recording IP addresses associated with successful bids and identifying user scores based on the number of successful bids associated with the recorded IP address. The claim further recites generating a prioritized list of bids based on the user scores that are based on the IP address findings. The claim further recites restricting bids from the prioritized bids list when the bids come from IP addresses that have exceeded a predefined number of bids.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites various features related to IP address analysis to prioritize legitimate bids and limit bot activity on the online marketplace. The IP address analysis features are necessarily rooted in computer technology and do not constitute methods of organizing human activity.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claims clearly recite an abstract idea, as they recite a scheme for prioritizing bidders for a pre-order transaction and sending the prioritized list to a seller. This is plainly a commercial interaction. Further, while the Examiner acknowledges that the problem of bot usage in online marketplaces is a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, the Examiner asserts that the claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in technology. The restriction of bids here is a commercial restriction (i.e., de-prioritizing and not accepting the bids to forward to seller), and not a technical one. No technical mechanism for implementing such a restriction in a computerized context is recited by the claims, beyond “by a processor”. This recitation represents the general application of the restricting to computer technology, and not necessarily rooting the restricting in that technology. Thus, while the present claims seek to address a problem specifically arising in technology, they do not provide a technical solution to that problem. Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further asserts, with respect to Step 2A Prong 2:
Applicant respectfully submits that, even if it is still determined that claim 1 recites an abstract idea in light of the amendments and arguments above (which is disputed herein by the Applicant), the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application pursuant to step 2A prong 2.
In step 2A prong 2, examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not the elements are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Using a judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond just generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment can successfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id. Additionally, as part of the step 2A prong 2 analysis, examiners should consider whether the claimed invention provides improvements to a technical field. MPEP 2106.05(a).
In considering whether the claim improves the technical field, a consideration should be made as to whether a technical solution is provided for a technical problem. MPEP 2106.05(a), DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the problem addressed by the claimed invention is a computer-specific problem. That is, bot activity on an online marketplace is a problem specific to internet marketplaces. The claimed technical solution to this problem is to record IP addresses associated with successful bids, and prioritize bids from IP addresses with a history of success.
Further, the claim recites restricting bids from IP addresses that exceed a predefined number of bids. Thereby, the claimed invention promotes bids from legitimate bidders and restricts bids from bot buyers, known for spamming bidding platforms with excessive numbers of bids. Accordingly, the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(a) and DDR Holdings.
Further, the claims are firmly linked to a specific practical application. The practical application of the claimed invention relates to limiting illegitimate bids associated with bots from online marketplaces. As amended, Applicant submits that the claimed invention is firmly and specifically integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). The claim now recites features related to IP address analysis that firmly link the claim to the described practical application.
Accordingly, for at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended, is patent eligible pursuant to step 2A prong 2.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and re-emphasizes that the claims do not set forth a technical solution to the problem of bot activity. Recording IP addresses and identifying numbers of bids from IP address are recordkeeping/accounting activities, and not technical ones. Restricting bids form a source (in this case, IP addresses) is a commercial operation, and not a technical one. The claim language setting forth these operations does not set forth the specific technological processes executed to perform the operations. Instead, the claims merely indicate that these operations are performed “by a processor”. Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the claimed operations are merely generally applied to a technological environment, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further asserts, with respect to Step 2B:
Applicant respectfully submits that, even if it is still determined that claim 1 recites an abstract idea in light of the amendments and arguments above (which is disputed herein by the Applicant), the additional elements of claim 1 amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
As amended, claim 1 recites recording IP addresses associated with successful bids and identifying user scores based on the number of successful bids associated with the recorded IP address. The claim further recites generating a prioritized list of bids based on the user scores that are based on the IP address findings. The claim further recites restricting bids from the prioritized bids list when the bids come from IP addresses that have exceeded a predefined number of bids. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that, pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(e), claim 1 adds additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(a) states that analysis related to improvements to the technical field are relevant to the eligibility analysis in both step 2A prong 2 and in step 2B. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the same analysis presented in Section 2A Prong 2 above related to improvement in the technical field pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a) can be applied in the 2B analysis to further support that claim 1 includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
Accordingly, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea pursuant to step 2B analysis.
In response, the Examiner directs applicant to the response above, and re-emphasizes that the specific technical operations to address bot bidding are not recited in the claims. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ringdahl (US 20140136345 A1) disclose systems and methods for efficiently evaluating online advertising inventory prior to sale, including de-prioritizing IP addresses associated with bot-like activity.
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 MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights