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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated October 28, 2025. In Response, submitted March 2, 2026, claims 1, 7, and 8 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-8 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 9-11 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 10-11 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant submits that the claims as amended overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant submits that the claims are eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A of the patent eligibility analysis. … Applicant respectfully submits that, even assuming arguendo that a judicial exception is present in the claims, which Applicant does not acquiesce, the claims are nevertheless eligible under Prong Two of revised Step 2A. In this regard, claim 1 as amended is directed to an ordered combination of technical features that requires communication between two different servers and electronic search requiring identification of a product based on at least a shape or color. For example, claim one recites, inter alia performing, over the communication network, a search of the plurality of transactions on the electronic marketplace server of a similar product based on (i) an image of the product included in the acquired purchase history to determine at least one of a shape or color of the product and (ii) at least one of a category or manufacturer of the product included in the acquired purchase history. As discussed during the interview, this electronic search is performed when a product code is not assigned to the previously purchased product. Furthermore, as a result of this search, a market price of the similar product is determined by calculating transaction data associated with transactions of previously purchased products. As such, a search for a similar product cannot be performed by simply searching a database and comparing a product codes between two different codes. Instead, the recited search requires identification based on comparing images of products to determine products with similar shapes or colors, and a market prices is subsequently calculated based on transaction data, which are technical features instead of an abstract idea.
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “performing … a search of the plurality of transactions … of a similar product based on (i) an image of the product included in the acquired purchase history to determine at least one of a shape or color of the product and (ii) at least one of a category or manufacturer of the product included in the acquired purchase history”, performing this search “when a product code is not assigned to the previously purchased product”, determining “as a result of this search, a market price of the similar product … by calculating transaction data associated with transactions of previously purchased products”, and searching “require[ing] identification based on comparing images of products to determine products with similar shapes or colors, and a market prices [being] subsequently calculated based on transaction data” are recitations of the abstract idea, and therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. Step 2A, Prong Two focuses on analyzing the technical elements recited in the claims. In the cited limitations those include the communication network, the electronic marketplace server, and while not explicitly recited in the claims “electronic search” is attributed to the “one or more processors” which carry out the limitations of the claims (see representative claim 1, limitation 2). The communication network is disclosed generically in the specification as a “ computer communication network … such as the internet or the like” [0028], and is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea of communicating data between two points, and therefore amounts to “apply it”. Similarly, the specification generically discloses the electronic marketplace server as “a server” [0019], and performs the abstract ideas of storing “the plurality of transactions” and managing the marketplace by generally linking them to the field e-commerce servers. Finally, the one or more processors are generically disclosed in the specification as “a central processing unit (CPU)” [0022] and is used as a tool to perform the abstract ideas related to searching, determining, and calculating discussed in these arguments as well as others discussed below in the detailed rejection, i.e., “apply it”. The lack of technical detail regarding these additional elements and how they perform their various abstract ideas provide support for the findings that these additional elements amount to technical features being used merely as tools to perform the abstract idea or generally linking the abstract idea to a practical application, rather than integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application. That is, while the claims recite technical features (i.e. additional elements) along side the abstract idea, that does not inherently make the claimed limitations or improvements technical, and in this case the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
On Page 11 of the Response, Applicant argues “Furthermore, Applicant submits that claim 1 clearly recites "something more" beyond well-known features. In this regard, Applicant's specification discloses that conventional ecommerce platforms were technologically incapable of predicting market conditions in an electronic marketplace for products provided by multiple vendors where the products do not have distribution codes. As discussed during the interview, the combined features of claim 1 provide an improved ecommerce platform for second hand products that are not commonly associated with product distribution codes. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim satisfies Step 2B, Prong Two of the patent eligibility analysis. The remarks above for claim 1 apply to claims 7 and 8. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Examiner notes, the alleged technical improvements are presented only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art). While Applicant alleges that the “specification discloses that conventional ecommerce platforms were technologically incapable of predicting market conditions in an electronic marketplace for products provided by multiple vendors where the products do not have distribution codes” no reference to this assertion was provided, nor could it be found by the Examiner. Examiner does note that the specification states “there is a problem in that, in electronic marketplaces in which a variety of shops sell products, there are many products to which product distribution codes are not assigned, which makes it difficult to look up the market prices of such products” [0004, emphasis added], however difficulty is not inherently equivalent to “technologically incapable”, thus the Examiner cannot determine the claims improve the technology (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Examiner also notes, similar to the discussion above regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements similarly fail to amount to “significantly more” at Step 2B. Additionally the test at Step 2B is not to determine whether the claims recite “‘something more’ beyond well-known features”, language that is commonly used in reference to a particular test of “well-understood, routine, and conventional” (which is not utilized in this or previous Office Actions as grounds for rejection regarding these claims), but rather to determine whether the claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 18-21 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in light of the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-6 are directed to a server (i.e., a machine); claims 7 is directed to a method (i.e., a process); claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-8 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites first acquiring code configured to cause acquiring a purchase history of a product purchased by a user on the marketplace;
second acquiring code configured to cause acquiring a market price, in the flea market, of a used product that is a used item of the product included in the acquired purchase history;
outputting code configured to cause outputting a message that causes display that prompts the user to list, in the flea market, the product included in the acquired purchase history at the acquired market price of the used product; and
third acquiring code configured to cause, based on determining a product distribution code is not assigned to the product included in the acquired purchase history:
performing a search of the plurality of transactions for a similar product based on (i) an image of the product included in the acquired purchase history to determine at least one of a shape or color of the product and (ii) at least one of a category or manufacturer of the product included in the acquired purchase history,
acquiring a product distribution code assigned to the product that is similar to the product included in the acquired purchase history,
acquiring, based on one or more transactions from the plurality of transactions associated with the acquired product distribution code, a market price of a used similar product that is a used item of the similar product by calculating transaction data associated with the one or more transactions to determine the market price, and
estimate, based on the acquired market price of the used similar product, the market price of the used product of the product included in the acquired purchase history.
Independent claim 7 substantially recites acquiring a purchase history of a product purchased by a user on the marketplace;
acquiring a market price, in the flea market, of a used product that is a used item of the product included in the acquired purchase history; and
outputting a message that causes display that prompts the user to list, in the flea market, the product included in the acquired purchase history at the acquired market price of the used product,
wherein the acquiring of the market price further comprises, based on determining a product distribution code is not assigned to the product included in the acquired purchase history:
performing a search of the plurality of transactions on the marketplace server for a similar product based on (i) an image of the product included in the acquired purchase history to determine at least one of a shape or color of the product and (ii) at least one of a category or manufacturer of the product included in the acquired purchase history;
acquiring a product distribution code assigned to the similar product that is similar to the product included in the acquired purchase history;
acquiring, based on one or more transactions from the plurality of transactions associated with the acquired product distribution code, a market price of a used similar product that is a used item of the similar product by calculating transaction data associated with the one or more transactions to determine the market price; and
estimating, based on the acquired market price of the used similar product, the market price of the used product of the product included in the acquired purchase history.
Independent claim 8 substantially recites acquiring a purchase history of a product purchased by a user on the marketplace;
acquiring a market price, in the flea market, of a used product that is a used item of the product included in the acquired purchase history; and
outputting a message that causes display that prompts the user to list, in the flea market, the product included in the acquired purchase history at the acquired market price of the used product,
wherein the acquiring the market price further comprises, based on determining a product distribution code is not assigned to the product included in the acquired purchase history:
performing a search of the plurality of transactions of a similar product based on (i) an image of the product included in the acquired purchase history to determine at least one of a shape or color of the product and (ii) at least one of a category or manufacturer of the product included in the acquired purchase history;
acquiring a product distribution code assigned to the similar product that is similar to the product included in the acquired purchase history;
acquiring, based on one or more transactions from the plurality of transactions associated with the acquired product distribution code, a market price of a used similar product that is a used item of the similar product by calculating transaction data associated with the one or more transactions to determine the market price; and
estimating, based on the acquired market price of the used similar product, the market price of the used product of the product included in the acquired purchase history.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) managing pricing products in a market environment (See specification, para. 4). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 7, and 8 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) one or more processors configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code (claim 1), (ii) an electronic marketplace server that manages an electronic marketplace comprising a plurality of transactions (claims 1, 7, 8), (iii) an electronic flea market (claims 1, 7, 8), (iv) a memory (claim 1), (v) a communication network (claims 1, 7, 8), (vi) a user terminal (claims 1, 7, 8), (vii) a graphical user interface (claims 1, 7, 8), (viii) program code (claim 1), (ix) a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which is recorded a program (claim 8), (x) a computer (claim 8), and (xi) an electronic marketplace (claims 1, 7, 8).
The additional elements of (i) one or more processors configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, (iv) a memory, (viii) program code, (ix) a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which is recorded a program, and (x) a computer are recited at a high level of generality (see [0022 & 0023] of the Applicant’s Specification discussing the one or more processors configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, [0022 & 0024-0026] discussing the memory that stores program code, [0028] discussing the communication network, [0020] discussing the user terminal and the computer, [0027 & 0029] discussing the graphical user interface, [0066] discussing the program code, and [0014] discussing the a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which is recorded a program) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (ii) an electronic marketplace server that manages an electronic marketplace comprising a plurality of transactions, (iii) an electronic flea market, and are recited at a high level of generality (See [0019] of the Applicant’s Specification discussing the electronic marketplace server that manages an electronic marketplace comprising a plurality of transactions and the electronic marketplace, and [0065] discussing the electronic flea market) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., e-commerce servers and platforms) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1 and 2 showing all the (i) one or more processors configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, (ii) an electronic marketplace server that manages an electronic marketplace comprising a plurality of transactions, (iii) an electronic flea market, (iv) a memory that stores program code, (v) a communication network, (vi) a user terminal, (vii) a graphical user interface, (viii) a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which is recorded a program, (x) a computer, and (xi) an electronic marketplace in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 7, and 8 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-6 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claim 1 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-6 are also ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-8 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0160422 to Schubert et al (hereafter Schubert). Schubert discloses a system for pricing items from a purchase history by identifying similar items and estimating value of the items to be priced.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0065019 to Cook et al (hereafter Cook). Cook discloses identifying distribution codes for items similar to item without a distribution code.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0234722 to Evevsky et al (hereafter Evevsky). Evevsky discloses searching for and determining product similarity based shape, color, category, and manufacturer of a given product.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0344965 to Wilkinson et al (hereafter Wilkinson). Wilkinson discloses determining item identification data such as color or size based on image analysis.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically Schubert in view of Cook and further in view of Evevsky and even further in view of Wilkinson fails to explicitly disclose perform, over the communication network, a search of the plurality of transactions on the electronic marketplace server for a similar product based on (i) an image of the product included in the acquired purchase history to determine at least one of a shape or color of the product and (ii) at least one of a category or manufacturer of the product included in the acquired purchase history. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628