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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/13/2026 has been entered.
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 1-8, 10-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, a pricing sheet template being configurable for different buyer types, different packaging types, and different pricing modalities, the pricing modalities including a set price, a custom price, and a weight price; providing an agricultural product type field, a packaging type field, and a pricing modality field; receive, from the vendor, a specified buyer type, enable at least one of the different pricing modalities to be selected for the specified buyer type, enable one of the different packaging option to be selected for the specified buyer type, receive, from the vendor, a selection of agricultural product type in the agricultural product type field, receive, from the vendor, a selection of one of the pricing modalities in the pricing modality field for the selected agricultural product type, the selected pricing modality including one of the set price, the custom price, or the weight price, receive, from the vendor, a selection of one of the packaging options in the packaging type field for the specified buyer type; store a pricing sheet, the pricing sheet configured for use for the specified buyer type and including the selected pricing modality for the selected agricultural product type and the selected packaging option, cause the pricing sheet to be displayed to enable a user to complete for the specified buyer type to purchase the agricultural product type using the stored pricing modality, receive, from the vendor, a second specified buyer type, enable at least one of the pricing modalities to be selected for the second specified buyer type, receive, from the vendor, a selection of the agricultural product type in the agricultural product type field, receive, from the vendor, a second selection of one of the pricing modalities in the pricing modality field for the selected agricultural product type, the second selection being different from the selection of the pricing modality for the pricing sheet, store a second pricing sheet, the second pricing sheet configured for use for the second specified buyer type and including the second selected pricing modality for the selected agricultural product type, and cause the second pricing sheet to be displayed to enable the user to complete a POS for the second specified buyer type to purchase the agricultural product type using the stored second pricing modality.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites, in part, generating an agricultural product type field, a packaging type field, and a pricing modality field; receiving a specified buyer type; enabling at least one pricing modality to be selected for the specified buyer type; enabling one of a plurality of packaging options to be selected for the specified buyer type; receiving, via the agricultural product type field, a selection of an agricultural product type; receiving, via the pricing modality field, a selection of a pricing modality; receiving, via the packaging type field for the specified buyer type, a selection of one of the packaging options; storing a pricing sheet, the pricing sheet configured for use for the specified buyer type and including the selected pricing modality for the selected agricultural product type and the selected packaging option, receiving, from the vendor, a second specified buyer type; enabling at least one of the pricing modalities to be selected for the second specified buyer type; receiving, from the vendor, a selection of the agricultural product type in the agricultural product type field; receiving, from the vendor, a second selection of one of the pricing modalities in the pricing modality field for the selected agricultural product type, the second selection being different from the selection of the pricing modality for the pricing sheet; and storing a second pricing sheet, the second pricing sheet configured for use for the second specified buyer type and including the second selected pricing modality for the selected agricultural product type.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, is directed to creation and storing of pricing sheets in order to enable purchase transactions, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions including sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of apparatus (claim 1), memory device (claims 1, 16), point-of-sale (claims 1, 16), interface controller (claim 1), processor (claims 1, 16), server (claim 16), vendor device (claim 16), and interactive interface (claims 1, 16, merely software only used for receiving inputs). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of storing, providing, receiving, enabling, causing…to be displayed, and generating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using apparatus (claim 1), memory device (claims 1, 16), point-of-sale (claims 1, 16), interface controller (claim 1), processor (claims 1, 16), server (claim 16), vendor device (claim 16), and interactive interface (claims 1, 16, merely software only used for receiving inputs) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification specifically paragraphs 0026, 0029, Figure 1, and generally all of paragraphs 0024-0034); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 17-19 appear to merely limit different buyer types, prevention of selection of a pricing modality, specifics of the specified buyer type and specified pricing modality, display and application of a discount option, specifics of the discount option, specifics of selection of a weight price, implementation of a packaging field, specifics of the packaging field, inclusion of an option to prevent a purchase, and calculation of sales tax, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The apparatus (claim 1), memory device (claims 1, 16), point-of-sale (claims 1, 16), interface controller (claim 1), processor (claims 1, 16), server (claim 16), vendor device (claim 16), and interactive interface (claims 1, 16, merely software only used for receiving inputs) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of storing, providing, receiving, enabling, causing…to be displayed, and generating, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the apparatus (claim 1), memory device (claims 1, 16), point-of-sale (claims 1, 16), interface controller (claim 1), processor (claims 1, 16), server (claim 16), vendor device (claim 16), and interactive interface (claims 1, 16, merely software only used for receiving inputs) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-8, 10-14 and 16-19 are not patent eligible.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-14 and 16-19 as currently written are novel and non-obvious over prior art. However, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is currently pending and represents a barrier to allowability. Examiner notes that any amendments made to the claims in an attempt to correct pending rejections could drastically alter the claim scope and could open up the possibility of prior art being applied in a future action.
Yu (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0226064) teaches a memory device storing a data structure for a point-of-sale ("POS") pricing sheet template for agricultural product types, the pricing sheet template being configurable for different buyer types and different pricing modalities, the pricing modalities including a set price and a custom price; an interface controller configured to provide an interactive interface for a vendor, the interactive interface including a product type field and a pricing modality field; and a processor in communication with the interface controller and the memory device, wherein the processor in cooperation with the interface controller is configured to: receive, from the vendor, a specified buyer type in the interactive interface, enable one of the different pricing modalities to be selected for the specified buyer type, receive, from the vendor, a selection of product type in the product type field of the interactive interface, receive, from the vendor, a selection of one of the pricing modalities in the pricing modality field of the interactive interface for the selected product type, the selected pricing modality including one of the set price or the custom price, store a pricing sheet to the memory device, the pricing sheet configured for use for the specified buyer type and including the selected pricing modality for the selected agricultural product type, and cause the pricing sheet to be displayed to enable a user to complete a POS for the specified buyer type to purchase the agricultural product type using the stored pricing modality. Yu further teaches receive, from the vendor, a second specified buyer type in the interactive interface; enable one of the different pricing modalities to be selected for the second specified buyer type; receive, from the vendor, a selection of product type in the product type field of the interactive interface; receive, from the vendor, a second selection of one of the pricing modalities in the pricing modality field of the interactive interface for the selected product type, the second selection being different from the selection of the pricing modality for the pricing sheet; store a second pricing sheet to the memory device, the second pricing sheet configured for use for the second specified buyer type and including the second selected pricing modality for the selected product type; and cause the second pricing sheet to be displayed to enable the user to complete a POS for the second specified buyer type to purchase the agricultural product type using the stored second pricing modality. Yu, however, does not teach each and every limitation recited in the independent claim language.
Maiocco (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0160425) teaches managing of the pricing of agricultural products through an interface, wherein the agricultural products are priced by weight. Maiocco, however, does not cure all the deficiencies of Yu, and the combination of Yu and Maiocco does not teach each and every limitation recited in the independent claim language.
None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Specifically, none of the applied references teaches “generating, by a server having a processor, on a vendor device, an interactive interface, wherein the interactive interface includes an agricultural product type field, a packaging type field, and a pricing modality field; enabling one of a plurality of packaging options to be selected for the specified buyer type; receiving, from the vendor device via the packaging type field of the interactive interface for the specified buyer type, a selection of one of the packaging options; and storing a pricing sheet to a memory device, the pricing sheet configured for use for the specified buyer type and including the selected pricing modality for the selected agricultural product type and the selected packaging option”. There is no prior art that teaches each and every limitation of the invention as a whole in combination with one another. Therefore Examiner finds the independent claims to be novel/non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “Claim 1 recites a particular apparatus including: a memory device storing a data structure for a POS pricing sheet template for agricultural product types, where the template is configurable according to buyer type, packaging option, and pricing modality and an interface controller that provides a structured interactive interface including dedicated product, packaging, and pricing-modality fields Claim 1 also recites a processor in cooperation with the interface controller and memory device that performs a defined sequence of operations to enable different pricing modalities and packaging options based on a selected buyer type, store a first buyer- specific pricing sheet, then receive a second buyer type and generate a second pricing sheet having a different pricing modality for the same agricultural product type. These elements are not generic "receive/store/display" functions recited at a high level of abstraction. Instead, they define a concrete implementation in which the memory-resident pricing-sheet template, interface logic, and processor-driven conditional enablement cooperate to produce and persist multiple buyer-specific POS pricing sheets with different permitted configurations. Such a claimed arrangement is the kind of specific implementation that the Federal Circuit has recognized as supplying an inventive concept, particularly where the claim recites a specific way of using computer components together, rather than merely invoking a computer as a tool” and
“This two-sheet, buyer-differentiated sequence is a concrete implementation of a configurable POS architecture-not a generalized instruction to "apply pricing rules on a computer." In that respect, Claim 1 is analogous to the kind of non-conventional arrangement of components recognized in BASCOM, and to the specific Internet interaction manipulation recognized in DDR Holdings as more than routine and conventional computer use”. However, there is no step in the claim language beyond enabling (which is simply making available and can be a step of not doing anything thereby allowing something to happen), receiving data, storing data, providing data, and causing data to be displayed. The specific types of data are irrelevant to eligibility. Further, there is nothing in the specification that describes any alleged improvements to the technical operation of the computer system. The physical components are addressed in the analysis separate from the abstract idea, but those components are merely general purpose computer components that operate in a conventional way. Likewise, in BASCOM, the computing elements were also determined to be merely generic computer, network, and internet components. The eligibility of BASCOM was in the non-conventional non-generic arrangement of those components, as outlined by the specification. Specifically, it was determined that the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user would provide “both the benefits of a filter on the local computer, and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server”. There is no such functionality present in the current claim language. Rather, the claims are entirely directed to the abstract idea while merely using general purpose computing elements to apply the abstract idea. Unlike BASCOM, the present disclosure does not explain how the generic computer components form an unconventional arrangement. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The Federal Circuit has recognized that a specifically structured interface that supports a particular operational improvement can contribute to eligibility, rather than constituting insignificant extra-solution activity”. However, there is no operational improvement to the additional elements in the claim language. There is merely receiving of information, storing of information, and outputting of information requesting to receive additional information. Besides the fact that all of these functions represent insignificant extra-solution activity, the issue is compounded by the fact that no technological improvement, or improvement to the additional elements themselves, exists. The only arguable improvement is to the abstract idea, which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The USPTO's Berkheimer guidance from April 2018 requires that a conclusion that additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional must be supported by an express factual determination, and that such support must come from one of the recognized forms of evidence-such as an express statement in the specification, a cited court decision recognizing the specific element as conventional, a publication showing the element was widely prevalent in the relevant field, or properly supported official notice” and “unless the rejection identifies evidence showing that the claimed buyer-type-specific template data structure, the conditional enabling of pricing modalities and packaging options by buyer type, and the generation and storage of first and second distinct buyer- specific pricing sheets for the same agricultural product with different pricing modalities were all well-understood, routine, and conventional in the agricultural POS field, the rejection lacks the factual support required by USPTO procedure”. However, the rejection above cites portions of the specification and Figures that support the finding that the additional elements are nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional. These paragraphs explain how multiple different types of interchangeable hardware may be used, thus showing that the computer technology is not specific, but general-purpose. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive
Applicant argues “The Federal Circuit has made clear that claims remain eligible where they recite a specific technological solution to a problem in computer operation or in a computer-implemented environment, including where the claim assigns particular functions to particular components or manipulates the computer environment in a specific way to achieve the result. (See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025)). Present Claims 1 and 16 are limited to a specific apparatus and workflow for generating and persisting buyer-type-specific POS pricing sheets using a configured memory template, structured interface fields, and processor- controlled conditional enablement. These elements are distinct from cases where a computer merely performs routine recordkeeping, generic calculations, or basic receiving/transmitting of data”. However, Page 14, line 26 through Page 15, line 13 of the Recentive Analytics decision explains that disclosure of an "already available [technology] with [its] already available basic functions, to use as [a] tool[] in executing the claimed process" is still an abstract idea. Such is the case with the instant claim set. There is no technological solution to a problem in computer operation that occurs in the claimed invention. Rather, the functioning of the computer is not changed whatsoever. The computer implemented environment is likewise unchanged, as it merely functions to apply the abstract idea. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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 BEKERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights