0DETAILED 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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 11/26/2014. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14 and 20 have been amended.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-11 are a system, claims 12-19 are a method, and claim 20 is a computer readable medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 12 and 20, taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
A system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory that stores computer-executable instructions that, if executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a plurality of want items from one or more want users, individual want items of the plurality of want items specifying a plurality of attributes of a good or service desired by the one or more want users;
receive a plurality of property items from one or more property users, individual property items of the plurality of property items specifying a plurality of attributes of a good or service offered for consumption by the one or more property users;
generate and publish an online listing of the plurality of want items, the online listing being publicly accessible;
determine a first want item of the plurality of want items that satisfies matching criteria for a first property item of the plurality of property items, the matching criteria comprising first tier matching criteria and second tier matching criteria, wherein the second tier matching criteria are optional;
generate an introduction message from a first property user associated with the first property item to a first want user associated with the first want item and enforce a set of privacy restrictions on the introduction message, the set of privacy restrictions comprising removing one or more attributes of the plurality of attributes of the first property item from the introduction message, to increase the difficulty of identifying the property item such that the introduction message comprises a subset of the plurality of attributes of the first property item;
cause the introduction message to be sent from an account associated with the first property user to an account associated with the first want user;
upon receiving acceptance of the introduction message from the first want user, make available the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item to the want user, and
upon receiving further acceptance of the first property item from the first want user, establish a secure messaging session between the first want user and the first property user to enable a transaction between the first want user and the first property user for the property item.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for generating a message to send between a buyer and seller based on goods/services related postings to enable a transaction. Further detailed for example in [0015] of the instant application as directed to real estate transactions. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
A system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory that stores computer-executable instructions that, if executed, cause the one or more processors to: [claim 1]
A computerized method for securely and anonymously connecting two parties, the computerized method comprising: [claim 12]
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to at least: [claim 20]
online listing
The additional elements emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 12, and 20 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 12, and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 12, and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, 12-19, and 20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 12 and 20 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user after receiving the introduction message, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user after the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item are made available to the want user, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user after the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item are made available to the want user, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user within the secure messaging session, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, terminate the secure messaging session. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user within the secure messaging session, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, terminate the secure messaging session.
Claim 7 recites wherein the set of privacy restrictions further comprises removing one or more attributes of the subset of attributes of the property item from the introduction message. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein the set of privacy restrictions further comprises removing one or more attributes of the subset of attributes of the property item from the introduction message. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: enforce a second set of privacy restrictions upon making the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item available to the want user, wherein the first set of privacy restrictions are different than the second set of privacy restrictions. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: remove the set of privacy restrictions upon establishing the secure messaging session between the first want user and the first property user.
Claim 11 recites wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: remove one or more of the set of privacy restrictions or the second set of privacy restrictions upon establishing the secure messaging session between the first want user and the first property user. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 13-19 recite substantially parallel claim language to claims 2-11 and therefore are also rejected for the reasons set forth above. For these reasons claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pevzner (US20220229924).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Pevzner discloses:
A system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory that stores computer-executable instructions that, if executed, cause the one or more processors to: (claim 1) [0011] The server presents to the online party in a user interface of a browser or an app installed on a device of the online party, information from records for the selected set of unique objects.
A computerized method for securely and anonymously connecting two parties, the computerized method comprising: (claim 12)
receive a plurality of want items from one or more want users, individual want items of the plurality of want items specifying a plurality of attributes of a good or service desired by the one or more want users; (one example shown in Figure 1A of artist of interest being followed by the user see elements 30 and 38) [0071] The choice of which artworks to present in a browsing gallery is based in part on whether the browsing gallery will be presented to a potential seller or to a potential buyer. A profile is created and maintained by the market technology for each of the participants to aid in the gallery selection. The profiles are generated based on, among other things, information provided by the user and activities of the user on the enhanced online market. The information and activities can include a browsing history in an auction price database, “likes” attributed to particular artists or to artworks, explicit wish lists, and others.
receive a plurality of property items from one or more property users, individual property items of the plurality of property items specifying a plurality of attributes of a good or service offered for consumption by the one or more property users; (shown in Figure 10A an interface for uploading a new artwork for sale on the website- 0152] When the upload new artwork control is invoked, the page of FIGS. 10A and 10B is presented. A listing form 219 including text boxes and other controls is used to complete information about attributes of the artwork to be offered for sale. When some or all of the attributes are provided a panel 220, 222 is presented to the participant to show the estimated price range of the artwork, a history of its value, and a control to be invoked to view more detailed analytics, such as value performance information. The participant is also given an opportunity in a section 224 to provide verification information about the artwork by uploading documents that establish ownership, valuation, authenticity, or other verification information. As shown in FIG. 11 (which is the bottom half of a page, the upper half of which is the same as FIG. 10A) the seller participant can select a type of damage to the artwork. The participant also can select a condition of the artwork by invoking a drop down list 223 to see several options 224 on FIG. 12. [0153] When the participant has completed the form and invokes the continue control 226, the user is shown a “set sale parameters” page which is shown in different possible states in FIGS. 13A and 13B, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. (FIG. 14 shows the bottom half of a page the top half of which is similar to or the same as FIG. 13A. FIGS. 16, and 17 show the top halves of pages the bottom halves of which are similar to or the same as FIG. 13B.) In the figures, the seller participant can set the type of sale. The choices include a fixed price sale 240, a sale at the market price 260, and a sale type 266 that is similar to auction in that buyers make offers and the seller chooses the best of the offers.)
generate and publish an online listing of the plurality of want items (artwork has been put up for sale 272 in Figure 18), the online listing being publicly accessible; (see confirm and publish in Figure 17) [0160] FIG. 19 shows a seller participant's summary view of his deals. Each deal is presented in a panel. Panel 272 reports an artwork of the seller participant that has just been published for sale and provides information about the listing. Also see Fig. 13B for setting privacy and public settings
determine a first want item of the plurality of want items that satisfies matching criteria for a first property item of the plurality of property items, the matching criteria comprising first tier matching criteria [0075] Each set of unique items that have been listed for sale can be described by a corresponding specific set of the similarity parameters. Then, for a given unique item identified as interesting by a participant during browsing (which, as a matter of statistics, would typically not be in the set of unique items listed for sale), the similarity process computes the value of the similarity parameters and generates a similarity set from the catalog such that the resulting similarity set has the same (or as close as possible) similarity parameter values as the set of unique items that are for sale. In other words, the enhanced online market technology selects the (default) values of the similarity filters for a given unique item being browsed to focus the participant on a similarity set of other unique items available for browsing that is most similar to the set of unique items that are available for sale. The following table identifies possible similarity parameters for use in the similarity filters.” and second tier matching criteria, wherein the second tier matching criteria are optional; [0077] For this reason, in some implementations, the similarity parameters can be grouped into a smaller number of filter groupings (see table above). Each filter grouping can be controlled by a user interface element (e.g., a multi-state button or a slider), which changes the value of the filter grouping within a range. This value for the filter group is then passed on to each included similarity parameter for use in applying the filter, thus achieving a good balance of user experience and similarity matching precision.
generate an introduction message from a first property user associated with the first property item to a first want user associated with the first want item and enforce a set of privacy restrictions on the introduction message (seller set hidden image and title in item listing in Figure 13A and 13B), the set of privacy restrictions comprising removing one or more attributes of the plurality of attributes of the first property item from the introduction message, to increase the difficulty of identifying the property item such that the introduction message comprises a subset of the plurality of attributes of the first property item; (shown in Figure 8 is a listing of an item with a hidden title and hidden image 202 and a message for request for permission to view the artwork detail is exchanged in 206; Figure 9 the seller approved the buyer and further information about the item can be exchanged)
The examiner notes that “to increase difficulty” is interpreted as intended use and therefore is not given patentable weight. However, the limitations have been addressed above for compact prosecution.
cause the introduction message to be sent from an account associated with the first property user to an account associated with the first want user; (shown in Figure 8 is a listing of an item with a hidden title and hidden image 202 and a message for request for permission to view the artwork detail is exchanged in 206; Figure 9 the seller approved the buyer and further information about the item can be exchanged)
upon receiving acceptance of the introduction message from the first want user, (see allow the request to see the details of the painting in 274 of Figure 21) make available the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item to the want user, and (see 1 user can view artwork data in 276 of Fig. 22 along with the artwork date in Figure 32)
upon receiving further acceptance of the first property item from the first want user, establish a secure messaging session between the first want user and the first property user to enable a transaction between the first want user and the first property user for the property item. [0122] A participant who wants to buy a particular artwork, can search the artwork catalog to find it on the market platform. If the artwork is not currently for sale, the participant can turn on notifications to be alerted before other participants when the artwork becomes for sale. Once a sale transaction is arranged between the buyer participant and the seller participant on the enhanced online market, the buyer participant transfers the purchase price to a third party who checks the authenticity and condition of the art work and then forwards the purchase price to the buyer participant. Then the artwork is delivered to the buyer. [0123] By this sequence of steps the buyer is assured by the market technology that the artwork is authentic and in good condition, that payment is secure, that shipping is professional handled, and that the buyer can understand the offered price and has the opportunity to negotiate the selling price.
Regarding claim 20, Pevzner discloses:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to at least: (A non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors see claim 50)
receive a plurality of want items from one or more want users, individual want items of the plurality of want items specifying a plurality of attributes of a good or service desired by the one or more want users; (one example shown in Figure 1A of artist of interest being followed by the user see elements 30 and 38) [0071] The choice of which artworks to present in a browsing gallery is based in part on whether the browsing gallery will be presented to a potential seller or to a potential buyer. A profile is created and maintained by the market technology for each of the participants to aid in the gallery selection. The profiles are generated based on, among other things, information provided by the user and activities of the user on the enhanced online market. The information and activities can include a browsing history in an auction price database, “likes” attributed to particular artists or to artworks, explicit wish lists, and others.
receive one or more property items from one or more property users, individual property items of the one or more property items specifying a plurality of attributes of a good or service offered for consumption by the one or more property users; (shown in Figure 10A an interface for uploading a new artwork for sale on the website- 0152] When the upload new artwork control is invoked, the page of FIGS. 10A and 10B is presented. A listing form 219 including text boxes and other controls is used to complete information about attributes of the artwork to be offered for sale. When some or all of the attributes are provided a panel 220, 222 is presented to the participant to show the estimated price range of the artwork, a history of its value, and a control to be invoked to view more detailed analytics, such as value performance information. The participant is also given an opportunity in a section 224 to provide verification information about the artwork by uploading documents that establish ownership, valuation, authenticity, or other verification information. As shown in FIG. 11 (which is the bottom half of a page, the upper half of which is the same as FIG. 10A) the seller participant can select a type of damage to the artwork. The participant also can select a condition of the artwork by invoking a drop down list 223 to see several options 224 on FIG. 12. [0153] When the participant has completed the form and invokes the continue control 226, the user is shown a “set sale parameters” page which is shown in different possible states in FIGS. 13A and 13B, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. (FIG. 14 shows the bottom half of a page the top half of which is similar to or the same as FIG. 13A. FIGS. 16, and 17 show the top halves of pages the bottom halves of which are similar to or the same as FIG. 13B.) In the figures, the seller participant can set the type of sale. The choices include a fixed price sale 240, a sale at the market price 260, and a sale type 266 that is similar to auction in that buyers make offers and the seller chooses the best of the offers.)
generate and publish an online listing of the plurality of want items, (artwork has been put up for sale 272 in Figure 18) the online listing being publicly accessible; (see confirm and publish in Figure 17) [0160] FIG. 19 shows a seller participant's summary view of his deals. Each deal is presented in a panel. Panel 272 reports an artwork of the seller participant that has just been published for sale and provides information about the listing. Also see Fig. 13B for setting privacy and public settings)
determine a first want item of the plurality of want items that satisfies matching criteria for a first property item of the one or more property items; [0075] Each set of unique items that have been listed for sale can be described by a corresponding specific set of the similarity parameters. Then, for a given unique item identified as interesting by a participant during browsing (which, as a matter of statistics, would typically not be in the set of unique items listed for sale), the similarity process computes the value of the similarity parameters and generates a similarity set from the catalog such that the resulting similarity set has the same (or as close as possible) similarity parameter values as the set of unique items that are for sale. In other words, the enhanced online market technology selects the (default) values of the similarity filters for a given unique item being browsed to focus the participant on a similarity set of other unique items available for browsing that is most similar to the set of unique items that are available for sale. The following table identifies possible similarity parameters for use in the similarity filters.” and see [0077]
generate an introduction message from a first property user associated with the first property item to a first want user associated with the first want item and enforce a set of privacy restrictions on the introduction message, (seller set hidden image and title in item listing in Figure 13A and 13B) the set of privacy restrictions comprising removing one or more of identifying information of the first property user (anonymous owner) and one or more identifying attributes of the first property item from the introduction message, such that the introduction message comprises a subset of the plurality of attributes of the first property item;
cause the introduction message to be sent from an account associated with the first property user to an account associated with the first want user; (shown in Figure 8 is a listing of an item with a hidden title and hidden image 202 and a message for request for permission to view the artwork detail is exchanged in 206; Figure 9 the seller approved the buyer and further information about the item can be exchanged)
upon receiving acceptance of the introduction message from the first want user, (see allow the request to see the details of the painting in 274 of Figure 21) cause the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item to be accessible to the want user, (see 1 user can view artwork data in 276 of Fig. 22 along with the artwork date in Figure 32) and upon receiving further acceptance of the first property item from the first want user, establish a secure messaging session between the first want user and the first property user to enable a transaction between the first want user and the first property user for the first property item. [0122] A participant who wants to buy a particular artwork, can search the artwork catalog to find it on the market platform. If the artwork is not currently for sale, the participant can turn on notifications to be alerted before other participants when the artwork becomes for sale. Once a sale transaction is arranged between the buyer participant and the seller participant on the enhanced online market, the buyer participant transfers the purchase price to a third party who checks the authenticity and condition of the art work and then forwards the purchase price to the buyer participant. Then the artwork is delivered to the buyer. [0123] By this sequence of steps the buyer is assured by the market technology that the artwork is authentic and in good condition, that payment is secure, that shipping is professional handled, and that the buyer can understand the offered price and has the opportunity to negotiate the selling price.
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Pevzner discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses wherein the set of privacy restrictions further comprises removing one or more attributes of the subset of attributes of the property item from the introduction message. (shown in Figure 8 is a listing of an item with a hidden title and hidden image 202 and a message for request for permission to view the artwork detail is exchanged in 206; Figure 9 the seller approved the buyer and further information about the item can be exchanged- this is set by the seller in set hidden image and title in item listing in Figure 13A and 13B)
The examiner interprets the redaction of this information from the original message until the code is provided as "removal" of one or more attributes from the introduction message. Note that the property profile includes [0037]A property profile may describe the main characteristics of a registered property and could include any descriptive information that an owner thinks might be of interest to a buyer, including information that may not be available to the general public. Additionally, the present platform encourages owners to upload photographs, traditional videos and 360 videos of their respective properties' distinguishing characteristics. Property profiles remain confidential unless and until an owner, at his sole discretion, chooses to provide access to a buyer who has included the owner's property on one of his or her buyer's list(s).
Regarding claim 10 and 19, Pevzner discloses the limitations set forth above and further discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: remove the set of privacy restrictions upon establishing the secure messaging session between the first want user and the first property user. (see 1 user can view artwork data in 276 of Fig. 22 along with the artwork date in Figure 32 and shown in Figure 8 is a listing of an item with a hidden title and hidden image 202 and a message for request for permission to view the artwork detail is exchanged in 206; Figure 9 the seller approved the buyer and further information about the item can be exchanged)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-6, 8, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pevzner US20220229924 in view of Goodrich (US20070043770).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Pevzner discloses the limitations set forth above. While Pevzner discloses the option to dismiss a response from the seller in Figure 23, it does not disclose:
provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user after receiving the introduction message, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction.
However Goodrich teaches:
provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user after receiving the introduction message, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction. [0034]At block 380, the method summarizes a notification of each matched property accompanied by a corresponding score or a detailed comparison of the search versus the subject property. The notification is sent to the buyer via suitable communications means, such as e-mail, fax, SMS, mail, phone, and so on, depending upon the arrangement with the buyer. [0035] The buyer can either affirm his continuing interest or withdraw from the process at any point during the information exchange process.
It is noted that the limitation "upon receiving the selection to decline further communications" is conditional language and not positively recited claim language. Therefore, the limitation is given little patentable weight, however has been addressed with art above.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the buyer/seller communication in Pevzner to include provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user after receiving the introduction message, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction, as taught in Groodrich, in order to avoid abuse of the solicitation process (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 3 and 14, Pevzner discloses the limitations set forth above. While Pevzner discloses the option to dismiss a response from the seller in Figure 23, it does not disclose:
provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item are made available to the want user, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction.
However Goodrich teaches:
provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item are made available to the want user, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction. [0035] The buyer can either affirm his continuing interest or withdraw from the process at any point during the information exchange process. See block 384.[…]The notification can be transmitted using any suitable means, such as mail or e-mail. In the notification, the buyer may provide personal information that may entice the owner to sell the piece of property. For example, if a property looks interesting, the buyer may affirm his interest; but then, if the seller specifies a tentative price in a subsequent communication through the entity operating the system 100, buyer may withdraw or respond with his own price. Until such time (if ever) as the seller elects to engage directly with the buyer, the entity serves as the electronic intermediary, acting as an exchange or clearinghouse for messages between buyers and sellers. The method then terminates execution.
It is noted that the limitation "upon receiving the selection to decline further communications" is conditional language and not positively recited claim language. Therefore, the limitation is given little patentable weight, however has been addressed with art above.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the buyer/seller communication in Pevzner to include provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item are made available to the want user, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction, as taught in Goodrich, in order to avoid abuse of the solicitation process (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 4 and 15, Pevzner discloses the limitations set forth above. While Pevzner discloses the option to dismiss a response from the seller in Figure 23, it does not disclose:
provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item are made available to the want user, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction.
However Goodrich teaches:
provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item are made available to the want user, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction. [0035] The buyer can either affirm his continuing interest or withdraw from the process at any point during the information exchange process. See block 384.[…]The notification can be transmitted using any suitable means, such as mail or e-mail. In the notification, the buyer may provide personal information that may entice the owner to sell the piece of property. For example, if a property looks interesting, the buyer may affirm his interest; but then, if the seller specifies a tentative price in a subsequent communication through the entity operating the system 100, buyer may withdraw or respond with his own price. Until such time (if ever) as the seller elects to engage directly with the buyer, the entity serves as the electronic intermediary, acting as an exchange or clearinghouse for messages between buyers and sellers. The method then terminates execution.
It is noted that the limitation "upon receiving the selection to decline further communications" is conditional language and not positively recited claim language. Therefore, the limitation is given little patentable weight, however has been addressed with art above.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the buyer/seller communication in Pevzner to include provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property user the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item are made available to the want user, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, cause further communications between the first want user and the first property user to be terminated and cause a notification to be routed to the account associated with the property user terminating the introduction, as taught in Goodrich, in order to avoid abuse of the solicitation process (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 5 and 16, Pevzner discloses the limitations set forth above. While Pevzner discloses the option to dismiss a response from the seller in Figure 23, it does not disclose:
provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property within the secure messaging session, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, terminate the secure messaging session.
However Goodrich teaches:
provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property within the secure messaging session, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, terminate the secure messaging session. [0035] The buyer can either affirm his continuing interest or withdraw from the process at any point during the information exchange process. See block 384.[…]The notification can be transmitted using any suitable means, such as mail or e-mail. In the notification, the buyer may provide personal information that may entice the owner to sell the piece of property. For example, if a property looks interesting, the buyer may affirm his interest; but then, if the seller specifies a tentative price in a subsequent communication through the entity operating the system 100, buyer may withdraw or respond with his own price. Until such time (if ever) as the seller elects to engage directly with the buyer, the entity serves as the electronic intermediary, acting as an exchange or clearinghouse for messages between buyers and sellers. The method then terminates execution.
It is noted that the limitation "upon receiving the selection to decline further communications" is conditional language and not positively recited claim language. Therefore, the limitation is given little patentable weight, however has been addressed with art above.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the buyer/seller communication in Pevzner to include provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property within the secure messaging session, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, terminate the secure messaging session, as taught in Goodrich, in order to avoid abuse of the solicitation process (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 6, Pevzner in view of Goodrich the limitations set forth above. While Pevzner discloses the option to dismiss a response from the seller in Figure 23, Pevzner does not disclose:
provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property within the secure messaging session, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, terminate the secure messaging session.
However Goodrich teaches:
provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property within the secure messaging session, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, terminate the secure messaging session. [0035] The buyer can either affirm his continuing interest or withdraw from the process at any point during the information exchange process. See block 384.[…]The notification can be transmitted using any suitable means, such as mail or e-mail. In the notification, the buyer may provide personal information that may entice the owner to sell the piece of property. For example, if a property looks interesting, the buyer may affirm his interest; but then, if the seller specifies a tentative price in a subsequent communication through the entity operating the system 100, buyer may withdraw or respond with his own price. Until such time (if ever) as the seller elects to engage directly with the buyer, the entity serves as the electronic intermediary, acting as an exchange or clearinghouse for messages between buyers and sellers. The method then terminates execution.
It is noted that the limitation "upon receiving the selection to decline further communications" is conditional language and not positively recited claim language. Therefore, the limitation is given little patentable weight, however has been addressed with art above.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the buyer/seller communication in Pevzner to include provide a selection to the first want user to decline further communications with the first property within the secure messaging session, and upon receiving the selection to decline further communications, terminate the secure messaging session, as taught in Goodrich, in order to avoid abuse of the solicitation process (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 8, Pevzner in view of Goodrich teaches the limitations set forth above. Pevzner further discloses:
wherein the set of privacy restrictions further comprises removing one or more attributes of the subset of attributes of the property item from the introduction message. (shown in Figure 8 is a listing of an item with a hidden title and hidden image 202 and a message for request for permission to view the artwork detail is exchanged in 206; Figure 9 the seller approved the buyer and further information about the item can be exchanged- this is set by the seller in set hidden image and title in item listing in Figure 13A and 13B)
The examiner interprets the redaction of this information from the original message until the code is provided as "removal" of one or more attributes from the introduction message. Note that the property profile includes [0037]A property profile may describe the main characteristics of a registered property and could include any descriptive information that an owner thinks might be of interest to a buyer, including information that may not be available to the general public. Additionally, the present platform encourages owners to upload photographs, traditional videos and 360 videos of their respective properties' distinguishing characteristics. Property profiles remain confidential unless and until an owner, at his sole discretion, chooses to provide access to a buyer who has included the owner's property on one of his or her buyer's list(s).
Claims 9, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pevzner US20220229924 in view of Lind (US 2017/0132679).
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Pevzner discloses the limitations set forth above, but does not expressly disclose:
wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: enforce a second set of privacy restrictions upon making the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item available to the want user, wherein the first set of privacy restrictions are different than the set of privacy restrictions.
However Lind teaches:
wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: enforce a second set of privacy restrictions upon making the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item available to the want user, [0039] Once an owner has established communication through the present platform with a buyer who has included the owner's property on one of his or her buyer list(s), the owner may decide to provide access to the property profile for his or her property by means of, for example, a digital key or password. Buyer access to a property profile may be limited with respect to the length of time it is available for viewing.
The examiner interprets the redaction of this information from the original message until the code is provided as "removal" of one or more attributes from the introduction message. Note that the property profile includes [0037]A property profile may describe the main characteristics of a registered property and could include any descriptive information that an owner thinks might be of interest to a buyer, including information that may not be available to the general public. Additionally, the present platform encourages owners to upload photographs, traditional videos and 360 videos of their respective properties' distinguishing characteristics. Property profiles remain confidential unless and until an owner, at his sole discretion, chooses to provide access to a buyer who has included the owner's property on one of his or her buyer's list(s).
wherein the first set of privacy restrictions are different than the set of privacy restrictions. [0021] This matching and notification process occurs each time a buyer adds a registered property to one of his or her buyer list(s). Once notified, an owner may decide to pursue a particular buyer's interest and initiate contact with the buyer by sending an internal e-mail via the present platform. All e-mail communications between owners and buyers on the present platform remain anonymous and confidential until such time as both parties mutually agree to reveal their identities.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the privacy settings in Pevzner to include wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: enforce a second set of privacy restrictions upon making the remainder of the plurality of attributes of the first property item available to the want user, wherein the first set of privacy restrictions are different than the set of privacy restrictions, as taught in Lind, in order to avoid the exposure and inconvenience associated with public listings and showings. ([0018])
Regarding claim 11, Pevzner in view of Lind teaches the limitations set forth above, but Pevzner does not expressly disclose:
wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: remove one or more of the set of privacy restrictions or the second set of privacy restrictions upon establishing the secure messaging session between the first want user and the first property user.
However Lind teaches:
wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: remove one or more of the set of privacy restrictions or the second set of privacy restrictions upon establishing the secure messaging session between the first want user and the first property user. [0021] This matching and notification process occurs each time a buyer adds a registered property to one of his or her buyer list(s). Once notified, an owner may decide to pursue a particular buyer's interest and initiate contact with the buyer by sending an internal e-mail via the present platform. All e-mail communications between owners and buyers on the present platform remain anonymous and confidential until such time as both parties mutually agree to reveal their identities. [0039] Once an owner has established communication through the present platform with a buyer who has included the owner's property on one of his or her buyer list(s), the owner may decide to provide access to the property profile for his or her property by means of, for example, a digital key or password. Buyer access to a property profile may be limited with respect to the length of time it is available for viewing.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the privacy settings in Pevzner to include wherein the computer-executable instructions that, if executed, further cause the one or more processors to: remove one or more of the set of privacy restrictions or the second set of privacy restrictions upon establishing the secure messaging session between the first want user and the first property user, as taught in Lind, in order to avoid the exposure and inconvenience associated with public listings and showings. ([0018])
Relevant Art Not Cited
De Haaff (US 20120166287) discloses the listing of want ads by a user and receiving responses from sellers regarding the want ad placement.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the remarks directed to the previous rejection under 35 USC 103, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. The rejection now relies on the teachings of Pevzner to teach the independent claims. While Lind and Goodrich are still relied upon for teaching portions of the dependent claims, the combination presented is different from the previous art rejection and the remarks are determined to be moot.
The objection has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, specifically first to the remarks regarding the abstract idea, the examiner asserts the rejection does show which limitations are determined to be part of the abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity. As applicant states, the claims recite steps for generating listings, matches of listings and buyers based on a criteria, and introduction messages to enforce privacy. While these steps are implemented by a computer, the steps are part of the abstract idea as they relate to marketing and sales (i.e transactions between a buyer and a seller for a listed item, also supported by applicant’s disclosure in at least [0015]).
With respect to the remarks addressing the technical process for controlling digital interactions between users in a networked environment, the examiner asserts that the technical features of the claims are recited at a high level of generality and merely implement the abstract idea. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Enforcement of privacy and providing efficient and safe introductions within a digital environment, still lies in the abstract idea. Simply appending the process to the digital environment and using a computer at a high level does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed.
With respect to the remarks comparing the instant application to those of DDR Holdings, McRO, and Trading Technologies, the examiner does not find the comparison to be persuasive. All three of these cases presented improvements, at least, to the computer interface itself and did not simply improve the business process and present an end result on the interface. The instant application does not even claim an interface, much less improve the interface functionality itself, as was the case in DDR, McRO, and Trading Technologies. The examiner does not find the instant application to be rooted in computer technology.
With respect to the alleged improvement to the transactional system, as discussed in the response above, the limitations are merely an abstract idea implemented by a computer that is recited at a high level of generality. While, at most, an alleged improvement to the abstract idea may be recited, which the examiner does not concede, the improvement would lie in the business process itself (i.e. the abstract idea) and not an improvement to the technical nature of the transactional system. This response also applies to the alleged improvement to the online sales platform.
With respect to the remarks directed to reducing unnecessary messaging traffic and improving the overall computer resource utilization, as stated in the interview on 3/6/2026, this is merely a consequence to the reduction in information the system is asked to process. That is, if the information given to the computer resources to process is less, then the computer resources required are reduced. It has not been shown in the claims or in the instant specification to be an improvement to the computer system itself, but rather the business process requires less information to be processed by the computer architecture to generate the messages, enforce privacy/secure messaging, and remove unqualified communications. All of the remarks directed to the reduction of messaging traffic, reduction in computer resources, reduced computational overhead, and reduced network bandwidth are found to be merely consequential to the inputs received by the computer system and are not persuasive for the reason stated above.
For at least these reasons, the examiner does not find the claims to provide a technical solution to a technical problem when considered alone or in combination, for the reasons set forth above.
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 VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights