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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 10/24/2025. Claims 1-2, 7-12, 17-18, 20-21 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1,10, 11 and 20 have been amended. Claims 3-6, 13-16 and 19 are cancelled. Claim 21 is added.
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, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10949913 and claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 20 of U.S. Pat No. 11887182. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations of the instant application are anticipated by the claim limitations of the conflicting patents, as shown in the comparison below.
Instant Application
US PAT 10949913
US PAT 11887182
1.A server comprising:
a storage device comprising a database of items and corresponding attributes data;
a hardware processor configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a first computing device, a first query that identifies a first item and an initial query value;
prior to executing the first query:
displaying a graphical element configured to automatically substitute the first query for a second query that includes the same initial query value as the first query; and
receiving a selection from the first computing device of the graphical element;
detecting a first response of the first query, the first response indicating a rejection of the initial query value;
in response to detecting the rejection of the first query initial query value, and receiving the selection of the graphical element, searching the database and identifying, from the database, a second item that includes an attribute shared with the first item, and generating a second query by substituting the first query with the second query that identifies the second item and the initial query value;
in response to substituting the first query with the second query, communicating, to a second computing device associated with the second item, the second query without receiving a request for the second query from the first computing device;
in response to communicating the second query to the second computing device, receiving, at the server, a second response to the second query from the second computing device;
And generating, at the server, a second graphical user interface indicating the first response from the first query and the second response from the second query,
And dynamically updating the
second graphical user interface based on the first response and the second response without receiving the request for the second query from the first computing device
1. A server comprising:
a storage device comprising a database of items and corresponding attributes data;
a hardware processor configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a querying computing device, an initial query that identifies a first item listed by a first user account and an initial query value for the first item;
providing the initial query to a first computing device associated with the first user account;
receiving a first response to the initial query from the first computing device, the first response indicating a rejection of the initial query value;
in response to the rejection, identifying a second item listed by a second user account, the second item including a shared attribute with the first item;
in response to the rejection, substituting the initial query with a replacement query that identifies the second item and the initial query value for the first item;
identifying a second computing device associated with the second user account;
in response to the rejection, automatically providing the replacement query to the second computing device associated with the second user account without receiving the replacement query from the querying computing device;
providing an option for the replacement query to the querying computing device prior to receiving the initial query from the querying computing device, wherein the initial query indicates a selection of the option for the replacement query;
generating, at the server, a first graphical user interface comprising a first graphical element representing the option for the replacement query;
providing the first graphical user interface to the querying computing device; and
generating, at the server, a second graphical user interface indicating a second response from the replacement query to the second computing device, without generating a third graphical user interface to the querying computing device, the third graphical user interface being configured to provide another query for the first item to the second computing device.
1. A server comprising:
a storage device comprising a database of items and corresponding attributes data;
a hardware processor configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a first computing device, an initial query that identifies a first item listed by a first user account and an initial query value for the first item;
providing the initial query to a second computing device associated with the first user account;
receiving a first response to the initial query from the second computing device, the first response indicating a rejection of the initial query value;
in response to the rejection, identifying a second item listed by a second user account, the second item including a shared attribute with the first item;
in response to the rejection, substituting the initial query with a replacement query that identifies the second item and the initial query value for the first item;
identifying a third computing device associated with the second user account;
in response to the rejection, automatically providing the replacement query to the third computing device associated with the second user account without receiving the replacement query from the first computing device; and
generating, at the server, a first graphical user interface indicating the second response from the replacement query to the third computing device, without generating a second graphical user interface to the first computing device, the second graphical user interface being configured to provide another query for the first item to the third computing device.
2.The server of claim 1, wherein the first item is listed by a first user account, wherein the initial query value corresponds to the first item.
7. (Original) The server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
identifying, in a listing application, a plurality of listings that indicate the first item as available, each listing originated by one or more user accounts of the listing application; and
providing the first query to the one or more user accounts that identifies the first item as available in their corresponding listing, the first query identifying the first item and the initial query value.
3.The server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
identifying, in a listing application, a plurality of listings that indicate the first item as available, each listing originated by one or more user accounts of the listing application; and
providing the replacement query to the one or more user accounts that identifies the first item as available in their corresponding listing, the replacement query identifying the first item and the initial query value for the first item.
3. The server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
identifying, in a listing application, a plurality of listings that indicate the first item as available, each listing originated by one or more user accounts of the listing application; and
providing the replacement query to the one or more user accounts that identifies the first item as available in their corresponding listing, the replacement query identifying the first item and the initial query value for the first item.
8. (Original) The server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
identifying, in a listing application, a first plurality of listings that indicate the first item as available, each listing originated by one or more user accounts of the listing application;
identifying a second plurality of listings from the first plurality of listings based on a replacement attribute; and
providing the second query to the one or more user accounts from the second plurality of listings.
4.The server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
identifying, in a listing application, a first plurality of listings that indicate the first item as available, each listing originated by one or more user accounts;
identifying a second plurality of listings from the first plurality of listings based on a replacement attribute; and
providing the replacement query to the one or more user accounts from the second plurality of listings.
4. The server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
identifying, in a listing application, a first plurality of listings that indicate the first item as available, each listing originated by one or more user accounts;
identifying a second plurality of listings from the first plurality of listings based on a replacement attribute; and
providing the replacement query to the one or more user accounts from the second plurality of listings.
9. (Original) The server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
providing an option for the second query to the first computing device prior to receiving the first query from the first computing device, wherein the first query indicates a selection of the option for the second query.
6.The server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
providing an option for the replacement query to the first computing device prior to receiving the initial query from the first computing device, wherein the initial query indicates a selection of the option for the replacement query.
10. (Currently Amended) The server of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise:
generating, at the server, a second graphical user interface comprising a first graphical element representing the option for automatically substituting the first query in response to the rejection of the initial query value;
and providing the second graphical user interface to the first computing device;
detecting a selection of the first graphical element from the first computing device; and
in response to detecting the selection of the first graphical element from the first computing device and the rejection of the initial query value, generating the second query by substituting the first query with the second query.
Claims 11 and 20
Claims 11, 13, 14, and 20 recite parallel claim language
Claims 11, 13, 14, 16 and 20 recite parallel claim language
As shown in the comparison above, claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10949913 and claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 20 of U.S. Pat No. 11887182 while not identical, recite claim language that anticipates claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 20 of the instant application. For this reason, claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 20 of the instant application are rejected.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1, 7-10, 21 are a system, claims 11-12, 17-19 are a method, and claim 20 is a computer readable medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-2, 7-12, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 11 and 20 taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
A server comprising: a storage device comprising a database of items and corresponding attributes data; a hardware processor configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a first computing device, a first query that identifies a first item and an initial query value;
prior to executing the first query:
displaying a graphical element configured to automatically substitute the first query for a second query that includes the same initial query value as the first query; and
receiving a selection from the first computing device of the graphical element;
receiving a selection from the first computing device of the graphical element;
detecting a first response of the first query, the first response indicating a rejection of the initial query value;
in response to detecting the rejection of the initial query value, and receiving the selection of the graphical element, searching the database and identifying, from the database, a second item that includes an attribute shared with the first item, and generating a second query by substituting the first query with the second query that identifies the second item and the initial query value;
in response to substituting the first query with the second query, communicating, to a second computing device associated with the second item, the second query without receiving a request for the second query from the first computing device;
in response to communicating the second query to the second computing device, receiving, at the server, a second response to the second query from the second computing device, the first computing device, the second computing device, and the server being different computing devices;
generating, at the server, a second graphical user interface indicating the first response from the first query and the second response from the second query
And dynamically updating the second graphical user interface based on the first response and the second response without receiving the request for the second query from the first computing device
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for processing a query for an item with an initial query value, substituting the first query for a second query when the first query is rejected and presenting an interface based on the processed queries. The instant specification details an online marketplace application that provide the buyer with options to generate replacement queries for other sellers when a first query is declined [0021]. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
A server comprising: a storage device comprising a database of items and corresponding attributes data; a hardware processor configured to perform operations comprising: (claim 1)
A computer-implemented method comprising: (claim 11)
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a server, cause the server to perform operations comprising: (claim 20)
receiving, from a first computing device,
automatically substitute
receiving a selection from the first computing device
searching the database and identifying, from the database,
communicating, to a second computing device associated with the second item, the second query without receiving a request for the second query from the first computing device;
in response to communicating the second query to the second computing device, receiving, at the server, a second response to the second query from the second computing device, the first computing device, the second computing device, and the server being different computing devices;
generating, at the server, a second graphical user interface indicating the first response from the first query and the second response from the second query
And dynamically updating the second graphical user interface based on the first response and the second response without receiving the request for the second query from the first computing device
The additional elements of emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further the additional elements of “And dynamically updating the second graphical user interface based on the first response and the second response without receiving the request for the second query from the first computing device” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception by providing data in the form of the graphical interface that is updated based on received data (i.e. the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)) - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
The step of “And dynamically updating the second graphical user interface based on the first response and the second response without receiving the request for the second query from the first computing device” of Step 2A has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification (paragraph 0030) does not provide any indication that the graphical interface is more than a conventional web interface, and the OIP Techs V. Amazon.com decision (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that when claims at a high level of generality, the presenting of offers and collecting data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 11, and 20 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 11, and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 7-10, 12, and 17-18, 21 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 11 and 20 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites wherein the first item is listed by a first user account, wherein the initial query value corresponds to the first item. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, in a listing application, a plurality of listings that indicate the first item as available, each listing originated by one or more user accounts of the listing application; and providing the first query to the one or more user accounts that identifies the first item as available in their corresponding listing, the first query identifying the first item and the initial query value. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and the recitation of the additional element “listing application” is recited at a high level of generality and therefore does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, in a listing application, a first plurality of listings that indicate the first item as available, each listing originated by one or more user accounts of the listing application; identifying a second plurality of listings from the first plurality of listings based on a replacement attribute; and providing the second query to the one or more user accounts from the second plurality of listings. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and the recitation of the additional element “listing application” is recited at a high level of generality and therefore does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites wherein the operations further comprise: providing an option for the second query to the first computing device prior to receiving the first query from the first computing device, wherein the first query indicates a selection of the option for the second query. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and the recitation of and therefore does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites wherein the operations further comprise: generating, at the server, a second graphical user interface comprising a first graphical element representing the option for automatically substituting the first query in response to the rejection of the initial query value; and providing the second graphical user interface to the first computing device; detecting a selection of the first graphical element from the first computing device; and in response to detecting the selection of the first graphical element from the first computing device and the rejection of the initial query value, generating the second query by substituting the first query with the second query. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and the recitation of the additional element “first graphical user interface” is recited at a high level of generality and therefore does not recite significantly more to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 21 recites wherein dynamically updating the first graphical user interface is performed without generating another graphical user interface to provide another query submission for the first item to the second computing device. The step of Step 2A has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification (paragraph 0030) does not provide any indication that the graphical interface is more than a conventional web interface, and the OIP Techs V. Amazon.com decision (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that when claims at a high level of generality, the presenting of offers and collecting data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function.
Claims 12 and 17-18 recite parallel claim language and are rejected for the reasons set forth above. For these reasons claims 1-2, 7-12, 17-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7-12, 17-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 6754636) in view of Lockhart (US 20130339183).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Walker discloses:
A server comprising: a storage device comprising a database of items and corresponding attributes data (330 containing a product category database, product class database, product feature database, and product database); a hardware processor configured to perform operations comprising (processor 320): [claim 1]
A computer-implemented method comprising: [claim 11]
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a server, cause the server to perform operations comprising (Figure 2A, program 325 and processor 320): [claim 20]
receiving, from a first computing device (buyer device 200), a first query that identifies a first item and an initial query value; [Col. 7 lines 24-30]The purchasing system device 310 arranges for the buyer to purchase the product, for example, when a buyer offer is received from a buyer device 210 through the Internet 110. As explained in greater detail with respect to FIGS. 2 and 3, the purchasing system device 310 may or may not route information about the buyer offer to, for example, a number of seller devices 510. [Col. 7 lines 48-50] By way of example, consider a buyer who sends the purchasing system device 310 an offer to purchase a 35 millimeter (mm) camera for $150.
detecting a first response of the first query, the first response indicating a rejection of the initial query value; [Col. 12 lines 44-57] The buyer's product requirements determine which products stored in the product database 900 (if any) can be used to accept the buyer offer. If the purchasing system device 310 finds a product that matches the buyer's offer, the purchasing system device 310 decides whether or not to accept the offer (such as by comparing the buyer price, adjusted for any subsidies, with the settlement price). When an offer is accepted, the purchasing system device 310 sends redemption information, such as voucher information, to the buyer and stores the accepted offer in the accepted offer database 1400. If an offer is not accepted by any seller, the purchasing system device 310 may take further steps to try to fulfill the offer.
in response to detecting the rejection of the initial query value, searching the database and identifying, from the database, a second item that includes an attribute shared with the first item, and generating a second query by substituting the first query with the second query that identifies the second item and the initial query value; [Col. 12 lines 61-67] Similarly, the purchasing system device 310 may search online auction services and, if a suitable product is found, make bids for the product on behalf of the buyer (up to, for example, the buyer offer price less a purchasing system profit amount). Such steps may be taken by the purchasing system to obtain a new or previously owned product for the buyer. For example, when submitting a buyer offer, the buyer may be asked whether he agrees to accept a previously owned product if a new product cannot be found to fulfill the buyer's offer. In one embodiment, the buyer may establish two prices online: one price for a new product, effective if such a product can be found; and one price for a previously owned product effective if a new product cannot be found. And see Col. 19 lines 55-65
in response to substituting the first query with the second query, communicating, to a second computing device associated with the second item, the second query without receiving a request for the second query from the first computing device; [Col. 14 lines 5-8] The purchasing system device 310 may instead, for example, send an offer to a second group of sellers if, and only if, every one of a first group of sellers has rejected the offer.
in response to communicating the second query to the second computing device, receiving, at the server, a second response to the second query from the second computing device; [Col. 15 lines 16-35] The seller device 510 may also store the "collected demand" for products (or for product descriptions that match the seller's products) directly as buyer offers are received from the purchasing system device 310. For example, the purchasing system device 310 may have 100 outstanding offers for a particular television model at a certain average price. While a seller may not wish to sell a single television at that price, it may agree to do so because the sale will involve 100 televisions (and therefore provide sufficient profit). When a buyer offer is received by the seller, the seller queries a seller product database to determine, for example, whether: (i) there is a record whose product description successfully fulfills the product specified in the buyer's offer; and (ii) the offered price is at least equal to minimum acceptable price for that product. If the query results in a product that fulfills the buyer's offer, the seller accepts the offer and transmits the acceptance to the purchasing system device 310. The examiner notes that the reference discloses a plurality of seller devices in Figure 1B that could be communicated with for the offers
the first computing device, (buyer device 200) the second computing device (seller device 510), and the server being different computing devices ; [Col. 7 lines 1-5] As before, the system 20 includes a number of buyer devices 210 (such as PCs executing browser application software) coupled to a purchasing system device 310 (such as a Web server) through the Internet 110
And generating, at the server (a purchasing system device 310 (such as a Web server)), a second graphical user interface indicating the first response from the first query and the second response from the second query, And dynamically updating the second graphical user interface based on the first response and the second response without receiving the request for the second query from the first computing device. [Col. 32 lines 30-43] By way of example, consider a buyer that offers $300 for a "class 1" camera having a zoom lens and a tripod. If the purchasing system device 310 does not find a match for such a product it may query the database for a "class 1" camera with just a zoom lens for $250. If a substitute product is found, the purchasing system device 310 presents the option of purchasing it to the buyer. The counter-offer may be presented to the buyer in real time or at a later date (e.g., when inventory becomes available later). The counter-offer message may be sent using, for example, regular mail, e-mail, the Web, a facsimile machine, a telephone, a PDA or a beeper.
While Walker discloses providing a substitute product to a user based on initial query parameters, the reference does not disclose:
prior to executing the first query:
displaying a graphical element configured to automatically substitute the first query for a second query that includes the same initial query value as the first query; and
receiving a selection from the first computing device of the graphical element;
[…] and receiving the selection of the graphical element,
However Lockhart teaches:
prior to executing the first query: displaying a graphical element configured to automatically substitute the first query for a second query that includes the same initial query value as the first query; and receiving a selection from the first computing device of the graphical element; […] and receiving the selection of the graphical element, [0050] In one embodiment, the user interface includes an option to search for alternative items to replace one or more of the suggested items. The alternative search option may be performed simultaneously for every item within the list or may be done on a per individual item basis.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the query for a product of Walker to include prior to executing the first query: displaying a graphical element configured to automatically substitute the first query for a second query that includes the same initial query value as the first query; and receiving a selection from the first computing device of the graphical element; […] and receiving the selection of the graphical element, as taught in Lockhart, in order to assist the user to find products within their budget (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Walker in view of Lockhart discloses the limitations set forth above and Walker further discloses:
wherein the first item is listed by a first user account [Col. 20 lines 30-45] FIG. 10A is a tabular representation of a portion of a seller database 1000 that may be stored at the purchasing system device 310 according to an embodiment of the present invention. The purchasing system device 310 may use the seller database 1000 to determine the seller type (i.e. whether the seller is a manufacturer or a retailer) and other information pertaining to a seller (such as the seller address for offer routing purposes or billing). As shown in FIG. 10A, the seller database 1000 may include: a seller identifier 1010; a seller name 1020; a seller type 1030; a seller address 1040; and seller categories 1050. In the routing embodiment, the seller database may contain contact information (e.g., a URL, an e-mail address, or a file path) used to route an offer, as well as product categories typically sold by the seller (used in selecting sellers to receive a buyer offer), wherein the initial query value corresponds to the first item.[Col. 7 lines 48-50] By way of example, consider a buyer who sends the purchasing system device 310 an offer to purchase a 35 millimeter (mm) camera for $150.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Walker in view of Lockhart discloses the limitations set forth above and Walker further discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, in a listing application (purchasing system 310 with storage device 330), a plurality of listings that indicate the first item as available, each listing originated by one or more user accounts of the listing application; and (see available quantity 927 and retailer identifier 929 in Figure 9B)
providing the first query to the one or more user accounts that identifies the first item as available in their corresponding listing, the first query identifying the first item and the initial query value. [Col. 7 lines 24-30]The purchasing system device 310 arranges for the buyer to purchase the product, for example, when a buyer offer is received from a buyer device 210 through the Internet 110. As explained in greater detail with respect to FIGS. 2 and 3, the purchasing system device 310 may or may not route information about the buyer offer to, for example, a number of seller devices 510. [Col. 7 lines 48-50] By way of example, consider a buyer who sends the purchasing system device 310 an offer to purchase a 35 millimeter (mm) camera for $150.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Walker in view of Lockhart discloses the limitations set forth above and Walker further discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, in a listing application (purchasing system 310 with storage device 330), a first plurality of listings that indicate the first item as available, each listing originated by one or more user accounts of the listing application; (see available quantity 927 and retailer identifier 929 in Figure 9B)
identifying a second plurality of listings from the first plurality of listings based on a replacement attribute; and [Col. 21 lines 35-51] The portion of the offer database 1220 shown in FIG. 12B may include: an indication whether or not a secondary offer has been made 1221; a secondary offer price 1222; a secondary offer status 1223; and a payment identifier 1224. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the buyer may specify acceptable substitute products when submitting the original offer. In effect, the buyer submits a primary offer (for the preferred product) and a "secondary" offer (for a substitute product). For example, a buyer submitting an offer for a camera may specify (i) essential and (ii) preferable features. A camera with both the essential and preferable features is the primary offer and a camera with just the essential features is the secondary offer. The buyer may also submit separate prices for the primary and secondary offers. The buyer may or may not agree to be automatically bound by the secondary offer and see Figure 9D
providing the second query to the one or more user accounts from the second plurality of listings. [Col. 14 lines 5-8] The purchasing system device 310 may instead, for example, send an offer to a second group of sellers if, and only if, every one of a first group of sellers has rejected the offer.
Regarding claim 9, Walker in view of Lockhart discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Walker discloses providing a substitute product to a user based on initial query parameters, the reference does not disclose:
wherein the operations further comprise: providing an option for the second query to the first computing device prior to receiving the first query from the first computing device, wherein the first query indicates a selection of the option for the second query.
However Lockhart teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: providing an option for the second query to the first computing device prior to receiving the first query from the first computing device, wherein the first query indicates a selection of the option for the second query. [0050] In one embodiment, the user interface includes an option to search for alternative items to replace one or more of the suggested items. The alternative search option may be performed simultaneously for every item within the list or may be done on a per individual item basis.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the query for a product of Walker to include wherein the operations further comprise: providing an option for the second query to the first computing device prior to receiving the first query from the first computing device, wherein the first query indicates a selection of the option for the second query, as taught in Lockhart, in order to assist the user to find products within their budget (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claims 10, Walker in view of Lockhart discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses:
generating, at the server, a second graphical user interface (website) comprising a first graphical element representing the option for automatically substituting the first query in response to the rejection of the initial query value [Col. 21 lines 40-45] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the buyer may specify acceptable substitute products when submitting the original offer. In effect, the buyer submits a primary offer (for the preferred product) and a "secondary" offer (for a substitute product). ; and providing the second graphical user interface to the first computing device;[Col. 31 lines 35-40] Consider a buyer who visits a purchasing system Web site and selects, or types in, "television" as the desired product category. The buyer is then taken through a series of questions that refine the buyer's offer.
detecting a selection of the first graphical element from the first computing device; and[Col. 32 lines 49-53]The final primary and secondary offer specifications are then confirmed by the buyer and are submitted to the purchasing system device 310 for processing.
in response to detecting the selection of the first graphical element from the first computing device and the rejection of the initial query value, generating the second query by substituting the first query with the second query. [Col. 32 lines 30-43] By way of example, consider a buyer that offers $300 for a "class 1" camera having a zoom lens and a tripod. If the purchasing system device 310 does not find a match for such a product it may query the database for a "class 1" camera with just a zoom lens for $250. If a substitute product is found, the purchasing system device 310 presents the option of purchasing it to the buyer. The counter-offer may be presented to the buyer in real time or at a later date (e.g., when inventory becomes available later). The counter-offer message may be sent using, for example, regular mail, e-mail, the Web, a facsimile machine, a telephone, a PDA or a beeper.
Regarding claim 21, Walker in view of Lockhart discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Walker discloses providing a substitute product to a user based on initial query parameters, the reference does not disclose:
wherein dynamically updating the first graphical user interface is performed without generating another graphical user interface to provide another query submission for the first item to the second computing device.
However Lockhart teaches:
wherein dynamically updating the first graphical user interface is performed without generating another graphical user interface to provide another query submission for the first item to the second computing device. [0050] In one embodiment, the user interface includes an option to search for alternative items to replace one or more of the suggested items. The alternative search option may be performed simultaneously for every item within the list or may be done on a per individual item basis.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the query for a product of Walker to include wherein dynamically updating the first graphical user interface is performed without generating another graphical user interface to provide another query submission for the first item to the second computing device, as taught in Lockhart, in order to assist the user to find products within their budget (paragraph 0021).
Relevant Art Not Cited
“Inferring Networks of Substitutable and Complementary Products” which discloses the process of determining substitute products using prediction models from trained data sources.
Response to Arguments
The previous claim objection is withdrawn based on the claim amendments.
The examiner acknowledges the comments directed to the Double Patenting rejection and the rejection stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 101, the examiner first notes the rejection has been updated above to reflect the claims as amended.
As to the technical problem, in particular with reference to [0022] of the specification, the examiner asserts that the automation of the searching workflow being consolidated into a singular operation as claimed merely recites an improvement to the workflow operation itself which is part of the abstract idea. The reduction in the number of interfaces in which is needed to perform the operation or subsequent operations is merely consequential to the improved workflow operation. The instant application is not comparable to CORE Wireless, as the CORE Wireless case did not recite any abstract idea and is a different fact pattern.
With respect to Step Two, the examiner maintains the same reasoning as above, the recited claimed invention at most improves the workflow (abstract idea) and not the computer itself. While the examiner agrees, the claimed invention does not merely arrange the information on the screen, but claims a specific workflow, per the discussion of Trading Technologies International, again, the improvement of the efficiency for eliminating post rejection manual searches is an improvement to the workflow. The improvement again here to the reduction in technical burden is merely consequential and not a technical solution to a technical problem.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 102, the rejection has been withdrawn and the claims are now rejected under 35 USC 103. Lockhart is now cited for the claims as amended and in light of the amendment to claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 1/27/2026