Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 11/25/25. Claim 1 was pending. Applicant added claims 2-15 and amended claim 1. After careful consideration the examiner finds the applicant arguments and amendments to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claims 1,7 and 12 are system claims which is a statutory class of invention.
The limitations under their broadest limitation cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activities which is essentially a fundamental economic practice.
receiving a request for market data on an item from …. associated with a first user; receiving a request for market data on the item from … associated with a second user; retrieving market data for the item, the market data comprising a price associated with an order for the item; retrieving user specific cost data associated with each of the first and second users; determining a normalized price for the order for each of the first and second users based on the respective user specific cost data associated with each of the first and second users; causing an … to be displayed at the first and second user …, the interface screen displayed for the first user comprising the normalized price for the first user and the … displayed for the second user comprising the normalized price for the second user, wherein the normalized price for the first user differs from the normalized price for the second user.
By amendment, “refreshing and resorting… displayed at the first and second … to reflect real time changes in the market data.
Here applicant provision of pricing data(summarized) is conducted with “a computerized device” by amendment. “first” and “second” suer computing device and interface screens. (by amendment)
The recitation of applying generic computing elements to the abstract idea is not patentable. (step 2A prong 1, yes the claims are directed to an abstract idea)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements such as computer device and interface screen. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality with mere instructions to apply the exception to the generic computing component. Accordingly these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not contain additional elements to amount to significantly more, known as “inventive concept. The claim is not eligible under step 2B.
However, a customizable interface screen with more detail as to the interface might be patentable. For example the inventive concept of refresh and resorting the interface screen to reflect real time changes in the market data… and alternatively resorting based on non-normalized and a specialized interface grid format for example. (see applicant spec, 0030 and 0032, “sorting may remain constant based on the normalized price even though the reverse display has been enabled…”
Applicant by amendment has added some of the normalized grid interface. But, not the entire offering as per above.
Here applicant has added claims 2-6 and 8-11, 12-15 to add further dependent claims which do not add further elements re: 35 USC 101. Claims 2, 3 combined with claim 1 for example might be enough to create an improved GUI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication to Ondyak 2008/0243668 in view of US Patent Publication 20080071634 to Rampell and US Patent to Hansen7043457
As per claim 1, Ondyak discloses;
receiving a request for market data on an item from a computing device associated with a first user;
(0139) receiving a request for market data on the item (0148, device may retrieve the a price and classification via a communications network)
from a computing device associated with a second user; retrieving market data for the item, the market data comprising a price associated with an order for the item;
retrieving user specific cost data associated with each of the first and second users;
(0161,167) determining a normalized price for the order for each of the first and second users based on the respective user specific cost data associated with each of the first and second users;
Ondyak(0117,0119,0164 and 0167,k one or more consumers 0144, 150)
Ondyak does not explicitly disclose what Rampell teaches;
causing an interface screen to be displayed at the first and second user computing devices, the interface screen displayed for the first user comprising the normalized price for the first user and the interface screen displayed for the second user comprising the normalized price for the second user, wherein the normalized price for the first user differs from the normalized price for the second user. (0347)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to combine the interface screen of Rampell with the price teachings of Ondyak for the motivation of creating a clear way of presenting prices to consumers. (0008)
Here Rampell and Ondyak do not explicitly disclose what Hansen teaches;
user; and refreshing and resorting the interface screen displayed at the first and second user computing devices to reflect real time changes in the market data. Hansen (col. 5 and 6, displays items and normalizes the prices, see fig. 8a, 8 c for a refresh button to update the current pricing., the invention is directed to multiple users like a first and second, col. 12 lines 30-35, the data for example Chicago Mercantile exchange is most current, col. 9 35-40)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the market data of Ondyak with the specific data display of Hansen for the motivation of “allowing buyers to evaluate the price of commodity offerings possessing various shipping parameters” (col. 1 lines 40-55).
Claim 7 is 1 plus 3 and claim 12 is 1 plus 2
As per claim 2, Ondyak and Rampell do not explicitly disclose what Hansen teaches;
The method of claim 1, wherein the interface comprises at least element, wherein selection of the at least one element causes resorting based on a non-normalized price.
Hansen(0047-9)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the resorting of Hansen with the interface of Ondyak for the motivation of “
As per claims 3, 8, Ondyak discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein the interface includes a grid, said grid including a cell for displaying the normalized price, and a non-normalized price. (0152-153)
As per claims 4, 9, and 13, Ondyak discloses;
The system of claim 1, wherein the cost data for each of the first and second users comprises at least one commission formula. (0161 fees are disclosed an it could be a variety types, flat or other methods, these are added to the price, 0105 formulatic agreement)
As per claims 5, 10 and 14 Ondyak discloses;
The system of claim 1, wherein the cost data for at least one of the first and second users comprises a fee formula. (0161 various manners of fee calculation from fixed to variable)
As per claims 6, 11 Ondyak does not explicitly disclose what Rampell teaches; The system of claim 1, wherein the cost data comprises at least one rebate formula. Rampell(0088 rebate). The motivation would be similar to that provided for claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 11/25/25. Claim 1 was pending. Applicant added claims 2-15 and amended claim 1. After careful consideration the examiner finds the applicant arguments and amendments to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim 1
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
"Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is directed to an abstract idea without more. ... The limitations under their broadest limitation cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activities which is essentially a fundamental economic practice." Office Action, p. 2.
The Office Action, pp. 3-4 states:
However, a customizable interface screen with more detail as to the interface might be patentable. For example the inventive concept of refresh and resorting the interface screen to reflect real time changes in the market data... and alternatively resorting based on non- normalized and a specialized interface grid format for example. (see applicant spec, 0030 and 0032, 'sorting may remain constant based on the normalized price even though the reverse display has been enabled...'
Applicant appreciates Examiner's useful suggestion. To that end, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite, among other limitations:
refreshing and resorting the interface screen displayed at the first and second user computing devices to reflect real time changes in the market data.
Additionally, Applicant has added independent claims 7 and 12 (see also dependent claims 2, 3, 8, and 13), that, among other limitations, respectively recite:
wherein the interface comprises at least element, wherein selection of the at least one element causes resorting based on a non-normalized price.
And
wherein the interface includes a grid, said grid including a cell for displaying the normalized price, and a non-normalized price.
Accordingly, the Office Action does not establish a prima facie basis to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal and reconsideration of the rejection. The analysis also does not contemplate the foregoing enumerated limitations of new independent claims 7 and 12.
Additionally, even if arguendo that claims 1, 7, and 12 are deemed to recite a judicial exception (e.g., "certain methods of organizing human activities"), the claims recite patentable subject matter under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B (see USPTO's January 2019 and October 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG")).
"When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine." MPEP 2106. Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 7, and 12 now recite a particularized machine that performs unconventional computer functions.
Specifically "refreshing and resorting the interface screen displayed at the first and second user computing devices to reflect real time changes in the market data, "the interface comprises at least element, wherein selection of the at least one element causes resorting based on a non-normalized price," and "interface includes a grid, said grid including a cell for displaying the normalized price, and a non-normalized price" recite an unconventional interface that displays information in a very specific manner. In conjunction with "causing an interface screen to be displayed at the first and second user computing devices, the interface screen displayed for the first user comprising the normalized price for the first user and the interface screen displayed for the second user comprising the normalized price for the second user, wherein the normalized price for the first user differs from the normalized price for the second user,"
Claims 1, 7, and 12 provide unique interfaces that provide personalized pricing information that is in real time (claim 1), sorted in a particular way (claim 7), or presented in a user-friendly format (claim 12).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 7, and 12 recite a practical application under step 2A, Prong 2 and "significantly more" under step 2B.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and a finding that claims 2-15 recite patentable subject matter.
Here in regards to 35 USC 101, applicant arguments are moot in view of updated grounds of rejection. However, while refreshing prices on a screen may be “un conventional” at some level, the current amended subject is more of a data display. Showing an unconventional display element or potentially an improvement of the display technology, making it faster or saving data could nominally be enough. The applicant specification talks at length about incorporating the commission and fee formulas into the display which could eventually create a practical application. The examiner suggests that 2, 3 incorporated into claim 1, ie a screen that automatically refreshes and keeps the grid consistent for example might be enough to create a claim similar to eligible examples.
Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2008/0243668 to Ondyak ("Ondyak") in view of US Patent Publication 2008/0071634 to Rampell ("Rampell"). Office Action, p. 4.
Ondyak does not explicitly disclose what Rampell teaches;
causing an interface screen to be displayed at the first and second user computing devices, the interface screen displayed for the first user comprising the normalized price for the first user and the interface screen displayed for the second user comprising the normalized price for the second user, wherein the normalized price for the first user differs from the normalized price for the second user.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to combine the interface screen of Rampell with the price teachings of Ondyak for the motivation of creating a more clear way of presenting prices to consumers. (0008)
Applicant notes that the Office Action does not identify any particular paragraph or drawing of Rampell that is alleged to teach "causing an interface screen to be displayed at the first and second user computing devices ..."
Here the examiner has updated the claimed rejection and further more added Hansen in view of the amended subject matter. Thus applicant argument is moot in view of updated grounds of rejection. However it is noted that Ondyak and Hansen at least are directed to multiple users.
However, claim 1 is amended to recite, among other limitations:
refreshing and resorting the interface screen displayed at the first and second user computing devices to reflect real time changes in the market data.
Moot in view of updated grounds of rejection. Hansen discloses quotes of current data from Chicago Mercantile exchange… most current.. (col 9)
Claims 7, 12 are similar to claim 1. The dependent claims are addressed generally by dependency but they are new in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Web-Service Based Information Integration for e-Mortgage Contract Matchmaking Decision Support: A Case Study in Hong Kong, IEEE 2006
Global Online Trading System (GoTrade), IEEE 2007
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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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 W 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 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693