DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 12/23/2025
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
The previous 112(f) interpretation has been withdrawn due to applicants amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 8, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to claims 1, 11, and 12 rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1, 11, and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 with respect to claims 1-12 rejected under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims satisfy the requirements of 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As MPEP 2106.05(f) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone);. For the reasons above, the 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
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, 2, and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and fails step 2 of the analysis because the focus of the claims is not on the devices themselves or a practical application but rather directed towards an abstract idea, the analysis is provided below.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) - The claims pass step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106(III)) as the claims are directed towards a device, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Step 2A – Prong One (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) - The idea is recited in the claims, in part, by:
searching for a business of a candidate predecessor company that wishes the business to be succeeded to by way of business succession, controlling information available for searching by:
receiving, from a prospective buyer company that wishes to buy a predetermined business, information regarding the predetermined business as a search query;
searching for, based on the search query, detailed information indicating details of the business of the candidate predecessor company, evaluation information indicating an evaluation of the detailed information by a third party, and customer information indicating a potential customer who is likely to purchase a product related to the business of the candidate predecessor company; and
outputting a search result,
receiving, from the prospective buyer company, information for identifying the prospective buyer company as company identification information;
receiving, from the prospective buyer company, a request for disclosure of other undisclosed information included in the evaluation information;
executing control to notify the company identification information to the third party, who is an evaluator of the evaluation information;
receiving, from the third party, information for identifying the third party and a request for interaction with the prospective buyer company who has made the request as third party identification information, in response to notification of the company identification information;
executing control to access permission that gives, based on reception of the third party identification information, access permission for the prospective buyer company to access the other undisclosed information included in the evaluation information for which the request has been made, permission for disclosure of the company identification information and the third party identification information between the prospective buyer company and the third party, and permission for the prospective buyer company and the third party to interact with each other; and
executing a control to notify the prospective buyer company and the third party of contents permitted by the executing control to access permission.
The steps recited above under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components for gathering information about a business to potentially purchase. That is other than reciting a search device, a network, a processor, a storage medium, and a non-transitory computer readable medium nothing in the claim elements are directed towards anything other than commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a search device, a network, a processor, a storage medium, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 20106.05(f) and MPEP 20106.05(h)). Accordingly, these 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 claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) - The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the steps recited in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. The additional elements have been considered separately, and as an ordered combination, and do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see 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) and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the instant application claims which recites and sending and receiving data via a network and using a storage medium to retrieve information from for information related to prospective business to purchase. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination as a whole. For instance, claims 2, and 4-11 are all steps that fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas, further defining abstract concepts being amounting to more than instructions to apply the abstract idea. The Dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II whose telephone number is (313)446-6564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
GREGORY S. CUNNINGHAM II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/GREGORY S CUNNINGHAM II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694