DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 8/8/2025.
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 .
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 1-14 and 16-20 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 and different pricing modalities, the pricing modalities including a set price, a custom price, and a weight price; receive, from the vendor, a specified buyer type in the interactive interface, enable at least one of the different pricing modalities to be selected for the specified buyer type, receive, from the vendor, a selection of agricultural product type in the agricultural 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 agricultural product type, the selected pricing modality including one of the set price, the custom price, or the weight price, 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, 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 in the interactive interface, 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 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 agricultural 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 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 interactive interface, wherein the interactive interface includes an agricultural product type field and a pricing modality field; receiving via the interactive interface, a specified buyer type; enabling at least one pricing modality to be selected for the specified buyer type; receiving, via the agricultural product type field of the interactive interface, a selection of an agricultural product type; receiving, via the pricing modality field of the interactive interface, a selection of a pricing modality; 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, receiving, from the vendor, a second specified buyer type in the interactive interface; 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 of the interactive interface; receiving, from the vendor, a second selection of one of the pricing modalities in the pricing modality field of the interactive interface 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, 17), point-of-sale (claims 1, 17), interface controller (claim 1), processor (claims 1, 17), server (claim 17), and vendor device (claim 17). 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, 17), point-of-sale (claims 1, 17), interface controller (claim 1), processor (claims 1, 17), server (claim 17), and vendor device (claim 17) 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 paragraphs 0026, 0029, Figure 1); 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 2-14, and 17-20 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, 17), point-of-sale (claims 1, 17), interface controller (claim 1), processor (claims 1, 17), server (claim 17), and vendor device (claim 17) 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, 17), point-of-sale (claims 1, 17), interface controller (claim 1), processor (claims 1, 17), server (claim 17), and vendor device (claim 17) 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 1-14 and 16-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0226064) in view of Maiocco (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0160425).
Regarding claims 1, 16, Yu 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 (Paragraphs 0008, 0058-0059); 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 (Paragraphs 0046-0053, product type, 0058, pricing modality); 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 (Paragraphs 0008, 0073), enable one of the different pricing modalities to be selected for the specified buyer type (Paragraph 0009, 0073), receive, from the vendor, a selection of product type in the product type field of the interactive interface (Paragraphs 0035, 0054), 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 (Paragraphs 0008, 0059, static price represents a set price and dynamic price represents a custom price, if there are no pricing factors selected, the pricing modality remains static), 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 (Paragraphs 0054-0056), 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 (Paragraphs 0054-0056). Yu further teaches receive, from the vendor, a second specified buyer type in the interactive interface (Paragraphs 0008, 0073, system of Yu can be used multiple times with different options selected); enable one of the different pricing modalities to be selected for the second specified buyer type (Paragraphs 0009, 0073, system of Yu can be used multiple times with different options selected); receive, from the vendor, a selection of product type in the product type field of the interactive interface (Paragraphs 0035, 0054, system of Yu can be used multiple times with different options selected); 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 (Paragraphs 0008, 0059, system of Yu can be used multiple times with different options selected); 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 (Paragraphs 0054-0056, system of Yu can be used multiple times with different options selected); 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 (Paragraphs 0054-0056, system of Yu can be used multiple times with different options selected).
Yu does not appear to specify that the products are agricultural or that a weight pricing modality is an option. However, Maiocco teaches managing of the pricing of agricultural products through an interface, wherein the agricultural products are priced by weight (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the pricing system of Yu for any type of product, including weighted agricultural goods, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 2, 19, Yu teaches the different buyer types include a retail buyer type, a wholesale buyer type, a member buyer type, a private buyer type, or a custom buyer type (Paragraphs 0008, 0073).
Regarding claim 3, Yu does not appear to clearly specify the processor in cooperation with the interface controller is configured to prevent one of the pricing modalities to be available for selection based on the selected buyer type. However, Yu does teach certain buyer types having certain pricing modalities (Paragraph 0073). Yu does not appear to clearly state that buyers not of that type would not have access to that pricing modality, but It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to exclude options from being selected that are only meant for a specific buyer type to ensure that those specific options are only used where they are intended.
Regarding claim 4, Yu teaches the specified buyer type is a retail buyer type and the selected pricing modality is the set price (Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0056, static price is a set price).
Regarding claim 5, Yu teaches the specified buyer type is a wholesale buyer type (Paragraph 0056). Yu does not appear to specify the selected pricing modality is the weight price. However, Maiocco teaches managing of the pricing of agricultural products through an interface, wherein the agricultural products are priced by weight (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the pricing system of Yu for any type of product, including weighted agricultural goods, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Yu teaches cause the interactive interface to display a discount option for the specified buyer type; receive, from the vendor, a selection of the discount option in the interactive interface for the selected agricultural product type; apply a discount to the selected pricing modality for the specified buyer type; and store the discount to the pricing sheet (Paragraphs 0054, 0073, 0091).
Regarding claim 7, Yu teaches the discount option includes a percentage discount based on the specified buyer type or an absolute amount discount based on the specified buyer type (Paragraphs 0061, 0065).
Regarding claim 8, Yu teaches storing pricing information to a pricing sheet (Paragraphs 0054-0056). Yu does not appear to specify when the weight price is selected, cause the interactive interface to display at least one of (i) a price per unit weight field, (ii) a total weight field, (iii) a total price field, or (iv) a total quality field; receive, from the vendor via the interactive interface, pricing information for the at least one of (i) to (iv); and store the pricing information for the at least one of (i) to (iv) to the pricing sheet. However, Maiocco teaches causing the interactive interface to display at least one of (i) a price per unit weight field, (ii) a total weight field, (iii) a total price field, or (iv) a total quality field; receive, from the vendor via the interactive interface, pricing information for the at least one of (i) to (iv) (Paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the pricing system of Yu for any type of product, including weighted agricultural goods, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Yu teaches the pricing sheet includes an option to prevent a purchase of the agricultural product type from being deducted from an inventory of the agricultural product type (Paragraph 0089, preventing from being used is a prevention of a purchase).
Regarding claim 17, Yu teaches causing 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 (Paragraphs 0054-0056).
Regarding claim 18, Yu teaches the pricing sheet is configured from a pricing sheet template for agricultural product types, the pricing sheet template being configurable for different buyer types and different pricing modalities (Paragraphs 0008, 0058-0059).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0226064) in view of Maiocco (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0160425), and further in view of Bernstein (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0166967).
Regarding claim 14, Yu teaches the pricing sheet template includes a field to enter a geographic location (Paragraph 0008). Yu does not appear to specify receive an entry of a geographic location, for a POS purchase transaction of the agricultural product type, transmit a taxable price of the agricultural product type and the geographic location a third-party tax calculator, and receive a sales tax amount from the third-party tax calculator for completing the POS purchase transaction. However, Bernstein teaches receive an entry of a geographic location, for a POS purchase transaction of the agricultural product type, transmit a taxable price of the agricultural product type and the geographic location a third-party tax calculator, and receive a sales tax amount from the third-party tax calculator for completing the POS purchase transaction (Paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective failing date of the invention to charge a sales tax since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “Paragraphs [0006] and [0087] discuss the benefits of providing different point-of-sale pricing modalities for the same product. For example, a vendor could sell products through an online store, as in paragraph [0006], or at a farmers' market” and “Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented apparatus configured to create different point-of-sale pricing sheets based on a desired pricing modality, buyer type, and agricultural product type, which is stored on a memory device. This memory device allows a vendor to easily select a pricing sheet for a given transaction without having to manually enter sales information, which greatly improves flexibility and efficiency for the vendor. This functionality cannot be performed by a human unaided and improves operation of the POS system by reducing manual entry and enabling context-specific pricing. Accordingly, Claim 1 reflects a technical improvement that transforms the alleged abstract idea into a practical application”. However, the improvements discussed are not technical improvements to a computer or a technical field, but merely improvements to the abstract idea of commercial interactions grouped within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. 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.
Applicant argues “Neither Yu, Bernstein, nor Maiocco disclose the use of different pricing modalities. Instead, Yu and Bernstein use set prices, and provide adjustments to the set price. Yu is directed to creating different pricing lists based on product attributes such as color and size, as described in paragraphs [0006] to [0009]. Bernstein calculates and records taxes based on a fixed price at the time of sale, as described in paragraphs [0005] to [0007]. With respect to Maiocco, Applicant notes that the cited disclosure is materially different from the claimed subject matter and respectfully reserves further discussion of that reference”. However, as explained in the rejection above, Yu teaches static pricing and dynamic pricing. Static price represents a set price and dynamic price represents a custom price. If there are no pricing factors selected, the pricing modality remains static and set. Therefore, the system does in fact allow for the selection of different pricing modalities. The Maiocco reference is used to merely show that a weight pricing modality is well known and would be obvious. Therefore, the combination of references is still believed to read over the claimed invention.
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 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