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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-10 are pending and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 6-10 are directed to a system, which is a machine. Therefore, claims 1-10 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Representative claim 1 sets forth the following limitations which recite the abstract idea of facilitating a transaction:
receiving from a selling subscriber account item data carrying information on attributes of an item offered for transaction;
running a first database query using a search string generated dependent on said item data, wherein the first database query is run on a database which stores instances of search data carrying information on attributes of a respective item sought for transaction by buyer subscriber accounts,
displaying the results of the first database query at the selling subscriber account to allow an operator of the selling subscriber account to view any instances of search data returned by the first data base query,
receiving a control input from the selling subscriber indicating that the item data is validated in response to an operator viewing the results of the first database query to allow an operator of the selling subscriber account to validate the item data;
storing the item data with an indication of validation as an instance of validated item data; and
initiating a communication link between a selling subscriber account having entered item data used to generate the first database query and a buyer subscriber account having provided search data returned by the first database query; and
running a second database query on a database which stores said instances of validated item data, the second database query using a string generated dependent on search data received from another buyer subscriber account, transmitting the item data returned by the second database query for display via said another buyer subscriber account, and receiving a control input from a subscriber linked to the search data indicating that the search data received from said another subscriber account is validated,
wherein the step of storing item data with an indication of validity is subsequent to said initiation of communication between a selling subscriber and a buying subscriber account.
The recited limitations emphasized above set forth steps to facilitate a transaction. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner notes that representative claim 1 recites additional elements such as an online system, a first database, a communication link, a second database, etc.
However, even with additional features such as these, the claims fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claims merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, while the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106).
Step 2B:
When taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, even including an additional element of a processor or computer to perform the steps would amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Certain additional elements are also recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Even considered as an ordered combination, any additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-5 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the steps for facilitating a transaction. Thus, each of claims 2-5 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and only generally link the abstract idea to a particularly technological environment, and applied on a generic computer. Further, the additional limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer, another technology, or a technical field.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2A/2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1.
The analysis above applied to all statutory categories of invention. Regarding independent claim 6 (system), the claim recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. The additional elements of claim 6 remain only broadly and generically defined, with the claimed functionality paralleling that of claim 1 (method). As such, claim 6 and its dependents 7-10 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowable over the prior art, though the rejection under 35 USC 101 still applies. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant's invention. Claims 1-10 are allowable as follows:
Claim 1:
running a second database query on a database which stores said instances of validated item data, the second database query using a string generated dependent on search data received from another buyer subscriber account, transmitting the item data returned by the second database query for display via said another buyer subscriber account, and receiving a control input from a subscriber linked to the search data indicating that the search data received from said another subscriber account is validated,
wherein the step of storing item data with an indication of validity is subsequent to said initiation of communication between a selling subscriber and a buying subscriber account.
Claim 6:
the system further operable to store search data subsequent to running a database query dependent on the search data, identifying a list of items returned by the database query, to transmitting for display the items returned by the database query, and to receiving control input from a subscriber linked to the search data indicating that the search data is valid so as to provide search data stored with a status of valid for use in running a new database query dependent on new item data.
The most germane prior art made of record includes Bennett et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,070,166) (“Bennett”) and Fraser (U.S. Patent No. 5,664,115).
Bennett teaches a process carried out by an online system to provide a communication link (Fig. 5, “523”) between subscriber accounts (Fig. 5, “501”) to allow the accounts to make transactions for items (Abstract, lines 11-15): receiving from a selling subscriber account item data carrying information on attributes of an item offered for transaction (col. 8, lines 50-54 and col. 9, lines 26-33 teaches receiving product information from a buyer); running a first database query using a search string generated dependent on said item data, wherein the first database query is run on a database which stores instances of search data carrying information on attributes of a respective item sought for transaction by a second subscriber account (col. 9, lines 4-7 teaches searching seller's systems for the product); displaying the results of the first database query at the first subscriber account to allow an operator of the first subscriber account to view any instances of search data returned by the first data base query (col. 9, lines 8-11 teaches returning shopping carts filled with buyer specified products); initiating a communication link between a first subscriber account having entered item data used to generate the database query and a second subscriber account having provided search data returned by the first database query (Fig. 8, “809” teaches buyer interacts with a seller to complete a sales transaction). However, Bennett does not teach or suggest the limitations identified above.
Fraser teaches an online system operable to provide a communication link between subscriber accounts to make transactions for items (Abstract, lines 1-5): the system operable to receive from a selling subscriber account item data carrying information on attributes of an item (Fig. 5A, “S101”; col. 5, lines 61-65); the system operable to store item data carrying information on attributes on given items (Fig. 5A, “S105”); and the system operable to receive from a buying subscriber account search data carrying information on attributes of items sought (Fig. 5B, “107”; col. 6, lines 41-48), and the system further operable to run database queries dependent on the search data received to identify and return a list of items dependent on said attributes (col. 6, lines 49-51); and the system operable to transmit for display at the selling subscriber account transaction communication data carrying information to be communicated from the buying subscriber account to the selling subscriber account (Fig. 5B; “S110”; col. 6, line 59 - col. 7, line 3: “The results of this evaluation is then recorded along with the other information provided by the prospective buyer and passed along directly to the seller...”), the system further operable to store search data subsequent to running a database query dependent on the search data (Fig. 4B shows that the “Requested Property Items” is added to the buyer's record; col. 5, lines 48-54), identifying a list of items returned by the database query (col. 6, lines 51-53), to transmitting for display the items returned by the database query (Fig. 8A, “S404”). However, Fraser does not teach or suggest the limitations identified above.
Furthermore, the combination of Bennett and Fraser also fails to teach or suggest the limitations identified above.
Additionally, the NPL article “Internet Auctions,” listed in the 4/23/2025 Information Disclosure Statement discloses an auction system that for auctioning goods on the Internet between buyer and sellers. However, the article does not teach or suggest the limitations identified above. Therefore, the cited NPL article does not render the claimed invention novel or non-obvious.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND LOHARIKAR whose telephone number is 571-272-8756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am – 5pm.
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.
/ANAND LOHARIKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights