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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative indicates that the claims as amended now recite patentable subject matter, and clarify the technical implementation resulting in a reduction in message traffic by avoiding broadcasting messages over a network. Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are patentable over Step 2A and Step 2B prong test.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion. An analysis of the claims as now amended is found below.
Applicant’s representative argues that the that the claims are not abstract, but rather are integrated into a practical application and provide a novel concept, and provide many arguments to support their assertion by stating that “In summary, the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea. Instead, the claims are directed to a specific, novel, and patentable system which implements a communications module with a relay that, based on the electronic message content, selectively uses a hybrid one-to- many and one-to-one electronic message communications system, i.e., where unsolicited…”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion. In determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, the Examiner must (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes which recites an abstract idea; and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Taken claim 1 as currently amended as an example, claim 1 now recites the following abstract idea when removing the bolded limitations as follow.
Claim 1 as an example currently as amended now recites:
receiving, by a specifically configured processor via an electronic communications
system coupled therewith, an electronic message generated by a market participant of a plurality of market participants, the electronic message comprising electronic message content;
determining, automatically by a message relay of a communications module implemented by the processor whether the electronic message content of the received electronic message includes data indicative of an association with another electronic message previously communicated to the market participant by another market participant indicative of the received electronic message being responsive thereto, and based thereon:
transmitting, automatically by the message relay using an electronic one-to-many communications protocol via the electronic communications system the received electronic message to all other market participants of one of one or more subsets of the plurality of market participants when the electronic message content does not include data indicative of an association with another electronic message previously communicated to the market participant by another market participant, and otherwise, transmitting, automatically using an electronic one-to-many communication protocol via the electronic communications system the received electronic message exclusively to the market participant who generated the other electronic message; and
determining, by the processor, when the received electronic message comprises an
acceptance to a transaction, one or more terms of the accepted transaction, and, based thereon, automatically generating, by the processor, an electronic transaction message to an electronic marketplace coupled with the processor to complete the transaction in accordance with the one or more terms of the acceptance.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites receiving data, transmitting data, and determining data.
Functions of transmitting data involves a data gathering function which the Courts have found to be non-statutory. Functions of transmitting data involves an insignificant post solution activity.
Additionally, functions of receiving data, determining data and transmitting data have been determined by the Courts to be directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (using a computer-implemented system “to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions” did not result in claim being non-abstract), In re Killian, 45 F 4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (claims “directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner,” fail step one of the Alice framework), Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims “directed to the abstract idea of ‘collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data’”’), Interval Licensing LLC vy. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (recognizing that information “is an intangible” and that “the collection, organization, and display of two sets of information on a generic display device is abstract absent a ‘specific improvement to the way computers [or other technologies] operate’” (brackets in original)), FairWarning IP, LLC vy. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining “that the ‘realm of abstract ideas’ includes ‘collecting information, including when limited to particular content’” as well as analyzing and presenting information), Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to organizing, storing, and transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea). The claimed function of “determining ” data is also seen or regarded as a generic function
of analyzing data and mental step. This function is also regarded as an abstract concept.
In removing the bolded additional elements, it is noted that the remaining limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106. 04(a}2)UD, because they amount to limitations specifying steps for managing commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by describing steps involving m exchanging information and messages between parties in relation involving potential transactions. The BRI of these limitations describes steps for exchanging information between parties for potential transactions by reciting steps of receiving a message, transmitting to market participants comprising an offer of at transaction and determining when the message comprises and acceptance to the transaction and generating a message to complete the transaction in accordance with terms of the accepted offer. Accordingly, the claim recites a commercial or legal interaction.
Claims 12 and 23 recite performing the similar functions of claim 1, with claim 23 reciting using stored logic stored in a memory and configured by a processor.
Applicant is being reminded that:
Performing steps or functions by a generic machine, computing device or one or more processors with memories merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Also, "the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two" do not improve the computer's functionality and as such are not directed to a solution of a "'technological problem."' TLI Comm. LLC., 823 F.3d at 612, 613. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in concluding claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The same reasoning taken in claim 1 is similarly applied to independent claims 12 and 23.
Applicants’ representatives then state and argue:
“The claimed invention provides technical improvements to electronic communications systems. In particular, by enabling one-to-many communications of interactive unsolicited electronic messages, the claimed invention simplifies the ability for one market participant to communicate with all of the other market participants, e.g., they need not send individual electronic messages to each recipient as they would have to in a pure one-to-one communications system. Further by only transmitting solicited messages to one recipient, communications bandwidth is conserved”. .
In response, the claims fail to recite any technological implementation details of how the claimed functions are being realized.
Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The specification does not even provide details of a specific architecture or means or structures or specific computer executed modules for performing the claimed functions. The claims are also absent of detailing the claimed receiving, determining and transmitting functions. Claim 1 may recite an improvement to the business problem of messaging messages to market participants or entities involved in a business transaction but does not provide any technical or computer improvement but rather makes use of computers as a tool to perform the messaging communications.
Claim 1 does not improve the functioning of the computer or processor or communication protocols, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “Nothing in the claim[], understood in light of the specification, calls for anything but preexisting computers and displays, programmed using techniques known to skilled artisans, to present the new arrangement of information.” Brumfield v. IBG LLC, 97 F Ath 854, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
The claims do not show a technical improvement in the architecture of a processor using a computing logic in a communication network for performing the claimed functions. The recited functions involve generic or conventional function and setup of a basic communication network. The mere recitation of a generic communication protocol or system or computer processor cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention as stated in Alice Corp., 134S.Ct at 2358; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cri. 2014) ("And after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. " (citation omitted)). Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer’, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358 (internal citation omitted). The claimed communication system is merely a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Applicant’s representative then argues “The claims as a whole integrate the method into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over the prior art systems by creating a hybrid automated one-to-many and one-to-one communications system. Thus, the claims are eligible because they are not directed to the recited judicial exception”.
In response, these added features do not transform the claimed invention into a practical application. Receiving, determining and transmitting of data involve a generic function usually performed by a generic processor or server.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the limitations of a processor, and logic stored in a memory as understood to be the additional limitations:
Each claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claimed processor and stored logic in a memory to be executed by a processor are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and as the claims recited in the affirmative, having a processor to perform the generic computer functions of receiving, transmitting and determining data, such do not amount to a significantly more than the abstract idea. Even the applicant’s specification does not provide any improved computer or technology rather generically applies the abstract idea to a generic computer.
The use of a computer or processor in a generalized fashion to increase efficiency does not meaningfully limit those otherwise abstract claims. See, e.g.. Ex. 1003, col. 5, II. 21-22; See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266,1278, (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.") at 1279; Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 67.
See also Alice Corp. 134 S.Ct. at 2358 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention... Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature[s] that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract] itself.") and Bancorp Servs., L.L.C.v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Applicants’ representative then state and argue:
“The claims are directed to electronic communications and, in particular, particular methods of routing electronically actionable messages between senders and receivers in accordance with a hybrid one-to-many/one-to-one communications protocol. While the claimed system may be used to communicate trading related electronic messages, this does not mean that the claims are directed as such.
In response, the instant claims recite no physical structural details of the electronic communication system or specific modules to accomplish the intended functions. The claims are not tied to any specific automated electronic computer apparatus. Computer elements that perform each of the functions are not explicitly recited. A statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures, means or module for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Each claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Applicants’ representative then submits that the claims, as presently amended, are not directed to certain methods of organizing human interactions and/or mental processes and, even if so, are directed to a practical application as the claimed combination integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response, the 2019 Guidance identifies “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as mental processes, and a category of abstract ideas. (2019 Guidance at 52); see also id., n.15 (quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mental processes can include claim steps that may be performed “mentally or by pencil and paper’’)); see also Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. vy. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’)). The receiving and determining functions are therefore viewed as mental processes. As such the claims do not provide a technical improvement.
Applicants’ representative then argues that these limitations, when taken as an ordered combination, provide unconventional steps that confines the abstract idea to a particular useful application. The combination of steps imposes meaningful limits that enable a computer to reduce a number of data transmission and ensure conservation of bandwidth in a network while still communicating electronic messages between the appropriate recipients. Therefore, the claims recite patent eligible subject matter.
In response, even when considered the claims as an ordered combination, the generically recited computer or processor including a determining and transmitting function add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the processor and stored logic in a memory to be executed. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic a generic computer or processor with a user interface component for performing routine functions. This is not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 US. at 225-26; see also Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Applicants’ representative then states “Here, when read as a whole, the claims are directed to a specific means that improves the relevant technology. That is, the claims require a specific, technological means that, in turn, provides a technological improvement. The Examiner is cautioned not to characterize the claims at an impermissibly high level of generality as that may ensure that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule. It is further noted that even if the claims simply employ known or conventional components, that alone does not necessarily mean that the claim is directed to abstract idea at step one. See Contour IP Holdings LLC vs. GoPro, Inc., 2022-1654 and 2022-1691 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Further, Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis.
In response, although the claims recite a one-to one communication and a one-to-many communication, a processor and or a stored logic for transmitting electronic messages of terms of an acceptance to a transaction, the claimed invention does not solve a challenge particular to the computer or the network used to carry out the claimed functions.
The claims do note not recite or show the additional elements improve (1) the computer itself, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the recited additional elements, of the “processor”, stored logic, one-on one communication protocol and one-to many communication protocol do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As noted by the court in TLI Communications, the court held that the focus of the claims was not on an improved server because the server is described in terms of performing generic computer functions such as storing data. TLI Commc 'ns, 823 F.3d at 612. The court added the claims were not directed to a solution to a "technological problem" as was the case in Diehr. Id. As comparatively noted here, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55.
Therefore, the claims are eligible because they provide “specific technologic means” that “does not cover other ways” that processing hardware may execute such operations. See Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., Case 22-1654, pp10-11 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Applicants submit that the Examiner’s analysis should not overlook these claimed features by characterizing the claims “‘at an impermissibly high level of generality”. Specifically, the characterization of the claims by the Examine should not exclude consideration of the very features the provide the technological results—contrary to the court’s direction in Contour. See Id at 11.
In response, although the claims recite a processor and stored logic in a memory in a communication protocol for transmitting electronic messages of terms of an acceptance to a transaction, the claimed invention here does not solve a challenge particular to the computer or the communication protocols used to carry out the claimed functions.
Applicant’s representative then states “Furthermore, in Ex Parte Annakov, the PTAB has rejected a “broad-brush approach in identifying purported recitations of abstract ideas [as being] overly inclusive”. See Ex Parte Annakov, Appeal No. 2023-003538 of U.S. App. No. 16/902,544 p.13 (PTAB 2024).”.
In response, the Appellant is to be noted that PTAB decisions, unlike precedential cases are case specific to the facts of the case and do not establish Patent Office Policy.
Applicants’ representatives then argue:
Like the claims in Annakov, the claims herein recite a complex process and interactions to control how various hardware elements interact. See Id. Hence, as was the case in Annakov, the Examiner’s analysis herein is insufficient. The Examiner cannot short cut the Alice analysis by simply alleging that “recited structural components that interact with each other’ are abstract and then stating that the claim is ineligible without “swallow[ing] all of patent law.” Id at 14 (quoting MPEP § 2106.04CD(A)(1) (citing Alice, 573 US. at 216)).
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion. As noted in the applicant’s specification, there is not a specific structure or computer components to perform the claimed functions which the applicant is arguing. The electronic one-to-many and one-to-one communication protocols are not a specific or new algorithm or structure noted in the applicant’s specification to enable communications or the sending or receiving of electronic messages or message data. The claimed communication devices or protocols noted in the applicant's specification are routine computer processors in a communication system to perform their expected functions, and to produce a result. There is not a showing or description of the claimed communication protocols to effect specific improvements to the communication protocols or processors. Furthermore there is a lacking of evidence that the claims improve the manner in which the communication protocols communicate messages as the applicant is arguing.
Applicant is reminded that "the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two" do not improve the computer's functionality and as such are not directed to a solution of a "'technological problem."' TLI Comm. LLC., 823 F.3d at 612, 613.
Applicants’ representatives then argue:
“the claims provide a detailed explanation of how unsolicited and solicited messages are communicated between the participants. Thus, under Federal Circuit law, claim | is patent eligible. Finjan, Inc. .v Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2018 (finding that claims that recite "specific steps" that accomplish a desired result recite more than the desired result, but rather disclose an "inventive arrangement for accomplishing the result"); see also DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F. 3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, LIC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
In response, in regard to Finjan, the court noted that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A of the USPTO's SME guideline) because it was found that the claims recite or contain an improvement in computer-related technology which is allowing computers to product "accurate and realistic lips synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators. The court further reviewed the applicant's specification and relied on the specification to conclude that humans did not use the claimed rules as were used to improve on computer animation technology on a specific manner to solve the problem of producing more accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions. Such specific rules "improved [the] existing technological process!, unlike cases such as Alice in which a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. Similarly, here, the claimed processors and stored logic in a memory to be executed by the processor in a communication protocol merely receives, determines and transmits data messages. There involves no technological advancement. The processor merely acts as tool to effect the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer processor component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As with DDR, the instant claims do not appear to improve on any technology. The problem that was solved in DDR was with the architecture of their overall system. The instant claims merely receive data, generate data, and transmit data. These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the “processor” or communication protocols.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not improve (1) the computer itself, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading and examining the claims.
Applicants further argue that "software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished through either route." Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LI, UAB, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG, at 1 (E. D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2021) (Gilstrap, J.), quoting Enfish, LUC .v Microsoft Corp. 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Software-provided features in Luminati were found to provide a technical solution to a technical problem by sending and receiving information through general purpose computers based on software in the claimed communications devices, and were not abstract.
In response, the recitation of a communication protocol with an associated processor and in the claims do not represent significantly more than an abstract idea. "[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also Alice. Accordingly, the claims do not recite a significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicants’ representatives then states “The unique combination of elements recited show that the claim is not to the idea of facilitating financial transactions, but rather that the steps impose meaningful limits that allow for a system to communicate, automatically, unsolicited interactive messages in a one- to-many manner, and the unsolicited messages automatically generated responsive to interaction in a one-to-one manner. Thus, the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception and are neither routine, nor conventional in the field”.
In response, the claimed functions are generic functions performed by a generic processor within an electronic communication protocol. While the claims do recite the functions are being performed by a processor utilizing computing logic to perform these functions, it should be reminded that any function to be performed by a computer usually requires a processor to perform that function via specific detailed computer logic and structures. Here, similarly, the claims recite generic functions of receiving data, determining data and transmitting data. There exists or recites no specific claimed elements to perform the claimed functions.
Applicants’ representative then made an analysis of their claimed invention and asserts that the claims are drawn to a statutory category of invention which fall within at least one of the four categories of patentable subject matter which Examiner agrees.
The Examiner however disagrees that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea in view of Step 2A and Step 2B of the Alice/May test.
The Examiner’s response is found below.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a method. Claims 12 and 23 are directed to a system. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention under step 1.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) under step 2.
Step 2A, Prong One: For example, the claims recite the following limitations that are understood to recite an abstract idea absent the bolded limitations:
Claim 1 now recites:
receiving, by a specifically configured processor via an electronic communications
system coupled therewith, an electronic message generated by a market participant of a plurality of market participants, the electronic message comprising electronic message content;
determining, automatically by a message relay of a communications module implemented by the processor whether the electronic message content of the received electronic message includes data indicative of an association with another electronic message previously communicated to the market participant by another market participant indicative of the received electronic message being responsive thereto, and based thereon:
transmitting, automatically by the message relay using an electronic one-to-many communications protocol via the electronic communications system the received electronic message to all other market participants of one of one or more subsets of the plurality of market participants when the electronic message content does not include data indicative of an association with another electronic message previously communicated to the market participant by another market participant, and otherwise, transmitting, automatically using an electronic one-to-many communication protocol via the electronic communications system the received electronic message exclusively to the market participant who generated the other electronic message; and
determining, by the processor, when the received electronic message comprises an
acceptance to a transaction, one or more terms of the accepted transaction, and, based thereon, automatically generating, by the processor, an electronic transaction message to an electronic marketplace coupled with the processor to complete the transaction in accordance with the one or more terms of the acceptance.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the transaction is limited to a particular product, the
method further comprising transmitting, automatically by the communications module via the electronic communications system, another received electronic message, comprising an offer of a transaction for another product different from the particular product and characterized by a proposed one or more terms and not responsive to another electronic message previously communicated to the market participant by another market participant, to all other market participants of another of the one or more subsets of the plurality of market participants.
Accordingly, claim 2 describes a type of data or offer, and a transmitting or communicating function which is considered as an insignificant post solution activity.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the other market participants of subset of the plurality of market
participants are specified by the market participant from which the electronic message comprising the offer was received.
Accordingly, claim 3 describes the types of entities or participants involved in a transaction.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the received electronic message may comprise a short message
service (“SMS”) message.
Claim 4 merely describes a type of message received from a type of medium not specified.
Claim 5 recites wherein the electronic message is received from the electronic
marketplace.
Claim 5 merely describes a market place in which transactions are performed.
Claim 6 recites wherein the electronic message relates to an offer to buy or sell a product
in the electronic marketplace communicated to the plurality of market participants, at least one of the subsequently received electronic messages comprising a response to the offer to buy or sell from one of the plurality of market participants.
Accordingly, claim 6 merely describes a type of data or message which is considered as descriptive data.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the electronic message was generated in response to a selection
of the offer to buy or sell the product via a user interface of the electronic marketplace presented to the market participant, the electronic message comprising data descriptive of the offer to buy or sell the product including a price associated with the product at a time of generation of the electronic message.
Accordingly, claim 7 also merely describes a type of data or message being generated
which is considered as descriptive data.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the electronic message comprising the acceptance includes
actionable data that when activated is configured to execute an action in the electronic marketplace.
Accordingly, claim 8 merely describes a type of data or message which is considered as
descriptive data.
Claim 9 recites: wherein the actionable data is configured to cause an acceptance of the
offer to buy or sell the product in the electronic marketplace.
Accordingly, claim 9 merely describes a type of data or message which is considered as
descriptive data.
Claim 10 recites: storing, by the processor in a memory coupled therewith, data
indicative of the market participants to which each electronic message was communicated and when the electronic message was communicated thereto.
Claim 10 merely describes a type of data or message which is considered as descriptive data.
Claim 11 recites: preventing, by the communications module, any of the plurality of
market participants, determined to not be receiving communications of electronic messages via the electronic communications system for a period of time, from subsequently accessing any electronic messages communicated via the electronic communications system during that period of time.
Accordingly, claim 11 merely describes types of entities involved in the transaction.
Claim 12 recites: A system comprising:
a processor; and
computer executable instructions stored in a memory coupled with the processor
that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, via an electronic communications system coupled therewith, an electronic
message generated by a market participant of a plurality of market participants, the electronic message comprising electronic message content;
implement a communications module with a message relay configured to:
determine, automatically, whether the electronic message content of the received electronic message includes data indicative of an association with another electronic message previously communicated to the market participant by another market participant indicative of the received electronic message being responsive thereto, and based thereon:
transmit, automatically using an electronic one-to-many communications protocol via
the electronic communications system the received electronic message to all other market participants of one of one or more subsets of the plurality of market participants when the electronic message content does not include data indicative of an association with another electronic message previously communicated to the market participant by another market participant, and otherwise when the received message comprises one of an acceptance of the transaction or a counter offer characterized by modifications to the one or more terms, transmit, automatically using an electronic one-to-one communication protocol via the electronic communications system the received electronic message exclusively to the market participant who generated the other electronic message; and
determine, when the received electronic message comprises an acceptance to a
transaction, one or more terms of the accepted transaction and, based thereon, automatically generating, by the processor, an electronic transaction message to an electronic marketplace coupled with the processor to complete the transaction in accordance with the one or more terms of the acceptance.
Claim 13 recites wherein the transaction is limited to a particular product, the computer
executable instructions further executable by the processor to cause the communications module to transmit, automatically via the electronic communications system, another received electronic message, comprising an offer of a transaction for another product different from the particular product and characterized by a proposed one or more terms and not responsive to another electronic message previously communicated to the market participant by another market participant, to all other market participants of another of the one or more subsets of the plurality of market participants.
Accordingly, claim 13 describes of data or offer and a transmitting or communicating function which is considered as an insignificant post solution activity.
Claim 14 recites: wherein the other market participants of subset of the plurality of
market participants are specified by the market participant from which the electronic message comprising the offer was received.
Accordingly, claim 14 describes types of entities or participants involved in a transaction.
Claim 15 recites: wherein the received electronic message may comprise a short message
service (“SMS”) message.
Claim 15 describes a type of message received from a type of medium not specified.
Claim 16 recites: wherein the unsolicited electronic message is received from the
electronic marketplace.
Claim 16 merely describes a market place in which transactions are performed.
Claim 17 recites wherein the electronic message relates to an offer to buy or sell a
product in the electronic marketplace communicated to the plurality of market participants, at least one of the subsequently received electronic messages comprising a response to the offer to buy or sell from one of the plurality of market participants.
Claim 17 merely describes a type of data or message which is considered as descriptive data.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the electronic message was generated in response to a
selection of the offer to buy or sell the product via a user interface of the electronic marketplace presented to the market participant, the electronic message comprising data descriptive of the offer to buy or sell the product including a price associated with the product at a time of generation of the electronic message.
Claim 18 also merely describes a type of data or message being generated which is
considered as descriptive data.
Claim 19 recites wherein the electronic message comprising the acceptance includes
actionable data that when activated is configured to execute an action in the electronic marketplace.
Claim 19 merely describes a type of data or message which is considered as descriptive
data.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the actionable data is configured to cause an acceptance of the
offer to buy or sell the product in the electronic marketplace.
Claim 20 merely describes a type of data or message which is considered as descriptive
data.
Claim 21 recites:
Wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable by the processor to:
store, in a memory coupled therewith, data indicative of the market participants to
which each electronic message was communicated and when the electronic message was communicated thereto.
Claim 21 merely describes a type of data or message which is considered as descriptive data.
Claim 22 recites: wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable by
the processor to cause the communications module to prevent, any of the plurality of market
participants, determined to not be receiving communications of electronic messages via the electronic communications system for a period of time, from subsequently accessing any electronic messages communicated via the electronic communications system during that period of time.
Claim 22 merely describes types of entities involved in the transaction.
Claim 23 recites: A system comprising:
a first logic stored in a memory and configured to be executed by a processor to cause
the system to receive, via an electronic communications system coupled therewith, an electronic message generated by a market participant of a plurality of market participants, the electronic message comprising electronic message content;
a second logic stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the processor
to cause the system to determine, automatically, whether the electronic message content of the received electronic message includes data indicative of an association with another electronic message previously communicated to the market participant by another market participant indicative of the received electronic message being responsive thereto, and based thereon
transmit, automatically using an electronic one-to-many communications protocol via the electronic communications system the received electronic message to all other market participants of one of one or more subsets of the plurality of market participants when the electronic message content does not include data indicative of an association with another electronic message previously communicated to the market participant by another market participant, and otherwise transmit, automatically using an electronic one-to-one communications protocol via the electronic communications system the received electronic message exclusively to the market participant who generated the other electronic message; and
a third logic stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the processor to
cause the system to determine, when the received electronic message comprises an acceptance to a transaction, one or more terms of the accepted transaction, and, based thereon, automatically generating, by the processor, an electronic transaction message to an electronic marketplace coupled with the processor to complete the transaction in accordance with the one or more terms of the acceptance.
Claim 24 recites: wherein the other market participants of subset of the plurality of
market participants are specified by the market participant from which the electronic message comprising the offer was received.
Accordingly, claim 24 describes of types of entities or participants involved in a transaction.
Claim 25 recites: wherein the received electronic message may comprise a short message
service (“SMS”) message.
Accordingly, claim 25 describes a type of message received from a type of medium not
specified.
Claim 26 recites: wherein the unsolicited electronic message comprising the acceptance
includes actionable data that when activated is configured to execute an action in the electronic marketplace.
Accordingly claim 26 merely describes a type of data or message which is considered as
descriptive data.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, still fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), because they amount to limitations specifying steps for managing commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by describing steps involving in exchanging information between parties in relation to considering potential transactions. The BRI of these limitations describes steps for exchanging information between parties for potential transactions by reciting steps of receiving a message, and determining, when the received message comprises an acceptance to a transaction, the one or more terms of the accepted offer, and, based thereon, automatically generating, a transaction message to a marketplace to complete the transaction in accordance with the one or more terms of the acceptance.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the above bolded limitations noted in the claims as understood to be the additional limitations.
These limitations performing steps automatically by a message relay communications module implemented by a processor using an electronic one-to-many communications protocol via an electronic communications system and an electronic marketplace merely amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea– see MPEP 2106.05(f), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, [0088]-[0089], similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer and "any kind of digital computer" including generic commercially available devices. The electronic communications system is similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate between systems (See paragraphs [0015], [0030], "coupled with" provides expansive definitions, [0034], "now available or later developed may be used," [0044], [0081]) which is properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer.
Performance of a receiving step by a computer processor amounts to performing steps which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering – see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Performing steps by computer processor hardware with electronic messages and an electronic marketplace merely limit the abstraction to computer field by execution by generic computers – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
While the claims do not specify any particular manner of receiving, transmitting and determining information, the breadth of the limitations reasonably includes collecting, transmitting and determining or information by communicating between devices over a network.
Reciting a "specifically configured processor" and communication protocols are understood to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106.05(b)(I), is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by a computer which receives a message electronically, determines when the received message comprises an acceptance to the transaction, the one or more terms of the accepted offer and generating a message to complete the transaction.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of exchanging information pertaining to solicited offers pertaining to an offer of a transaction and unsolicited messages pertaining to an offer of a transaction to users at large along with automatically messaging a marketplace to complete the transaction. Performance of these steps technologically does present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claims fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis. Requesting and receiving information by computer hardware amounts to receiving and transmitting information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Independent claims 12 and 23 recite similar limitations as claim 1 but instead claim a system or device for performing the steps of process claim 1.
Positively reciting a computer processor and memory storing software instructions does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer. Independent claim 12 recites the same limitations as claim 1 but instead claims a system or device for performing the steps of process claim 1. The same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 12 and 23.
Positively reciting the logic stored in memory which when executed by a processor causes performance of the steps does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer. Claims 12 and 23are accordingly rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, discussed in detail above.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for receiving data, storing data, determining data and transmitting data.
These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claimed elements are also seen as generic computer components receiving, storing, transmitting, determining data and performing generic functions without an inventive concept as they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements are interpreted as being recited at a high level of generality and even if the claims recited in the affirmative.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or renders the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination, the elements do not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant is reminded that a statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-26 are directed to an abstract idea.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
March 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights