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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on June 1, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This communication is responsive to the submission filed June 1, 2026.
Claims 25, 48, and 90 are amended.
Claims 1-24, 31, 41, 43, 59, 65, 67, and 71-85 are canceled.
Claims 25-30, 32-40, 42, 44-58, 60-64, 66, 68-70, and 86-91 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Independent Claim 25
Applicant contends that the claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. First, Applicant contends that the non-final Office Action improperly oversimplified the claims as being directed to an auction process and omits technological limitations of the claims. Specifically, Applicant contends that the claim limitations defines how the distributed computer system operates: received bids are converted into standing bids according to a threshold, current standing bids are communicated to terminals, incentive payments are distributed according to standing-bid increments, and the standing-bid state is recorded in a blockchain. Examiner respectfully disagrees that such subject matter recites technological limitations such that the claim as a whole is not directed towards abstract ideas. For example, converting a received bid into a standing bid, transmitting standing bids to other terminals, i.e., bidders, distributing payments, and recording standing-bids in a ledger, i.e., the blockchain, relate to running an auction. The inclusion of the blockchain and terminals are general instructions that link the use of the abstract ideas to the blockchain computing environment. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that the claim as a whole does not recite an abstract idea is unpersuasive.
Applicant next contends that claim 25 integrates an abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant contends that the technical result is reduced energy usage, as recited in the claim. Further, the reduction is tied to the incentive payment mechanism. Examiner respectfully disagrees that such subject matter recites a practical application of the abstract ideas. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(II). Here, the distribution of incentive payments results in the alleged practical application of reducing energy usage. However, the distribution of incentive payments recites an abstract idea, i.e., commercial interactions, rather than reciting an additional element. Because a practical application must be based on additional elements, the claim does not recite a practical application because it recites distributing incentive payments with a result of reducing energy usage. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that claim 25 recites a practical application is unpersuasive.
Applicant also contends that the blockchain limitation is not a field-of-use limitation. Specifically, Applicant contends that the limitations “the server records in a blockchain each current standing bid” and “the blockchain includes the server and the plurality of computer terminals as nodes” defines the architecture of the computing system itself. Examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations recite storing current standing bids in a ledger, i.e., blockchain, and that the server and terminals are generally part of the system running the ledger, i.e., blockchain. A computing storing data is an instruction to apply the abstract ideas. See 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.”). Further, generally reciting that a blockchain includes a plurality of computers, i.e., the server and terminals, to perform the recited abstract ideas also is an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, Applicant’s contention is unpersuasive.
Applicant also contends that claim 24 recites more than a generic computer implementation. Examiner respectfully disagrees as threshold-based conversion of bids into standing bids, transmission of current standing bids, incentive payment distribution, and recording of each current standing bid are examples of abstract ideas, not additional elements. The limitation of reduced energy usage was addressed above. Finally, the server-terminal communication as well as blockchain recording of each current standing bid and the blockchain including the server and terminals as nodes are instructions to apply the abstract ideas because both the server and the terminals are computers and they are being used to implement the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s contention is unpersuasive.
Applicant also contends that claim 25 is analogous to eligible computer-implemented claims and generally cites to Enfish, McRO, and BASCOM. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the framework implemented in 2019 for determining patent eligibility no longer focuses on analogizing pending claims to court-decided claim eligibility. Additionally, the rules used to achieve a practical technological result, presumably reduced energy usage, are abstract ideas rather than additional elements. Therefore, they cannot serve to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s contention is unpersuasive.
Independent Claim 48
Applicant contends that the non-final Office Action improperly oversimplified claim 48. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the subject matter cited in the remarks, as a whole, are not directed towards abstract ideas. Rather, the claim limitations related to recording standing bids in a ledger, continuously monitoring received bids to determine a new standing bid, using a received bid as the new standing bid based on the new bid exceeding the previous standing bid, a seller-ordered end to the auction, and incentive payments are abstract ideas that relate to executing an auction. That the claim recites additional elements, such as a blockchain, server, and computer terminals, does not preclude the claim from reciting abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that the claims as a whole fail to recite abstract ideas is unpersuasive.
Applicant also contends that the claim recites architecture of the computing system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, sending and receiving bids, i.e., synchronization, storing bids, continuously monitoring received bids to determine a new standing bid, and seller-ordered end to the auction are abstract ideas rather than additional elements. The additional elements are generally recited as servers, terminals, and blockchain, all of which are used to implement these abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that the claim is not directed merely to an abstract idea is unpersuasive.
Applicant contends that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. Applicant’s remarks state “Claim 48 affirmatively requires a bid-processing and incentive-distribution mechanism that changes operation of the distribution blockchain system itself by shortening auction duration and thereby reducing distributed processing activity” (emphasis added). As Applicant’s remarks state, the bid processing and incentive payments result, i.e., thereby, reduce processing activity, i.e., reduce energy usage. Therefore, the reduced energy usage is a result of implementing the abstract ideas rather than the result of a technical limitation. Further, nothing in the claim changes operation of a blockchain. Applicant’s remarks regarding the blockchain architecture being integral to the claimed invention and prior court cases have been addressed above in connection with claim 25. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract ideas is unpersuasive.
Applicant contends that claim 48 recites significantly more than the abstract ideas by simply stating that the combination of claim elements is unconventional and non-generic. Applicant also contends that the non-final Office Action failed to provide evidentiary support for well-understood, routine, and conventional activities under Berkheimer. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Berkheimer evidentiary requirements are necessary only when claim elements are found to recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(II) states that, at Step 2B, examiners carry over their identification of additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two and their conclusions. Here, the conclusions were that the additional elements amounted to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers rather than insignificant extra-solution activities. Because the additional elements were found to be instructions to an apply the abstract ideas rather than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the Berkheimer evidentiary requirements do not apply. Therefore, Applicant’s contention is unpersuasive.
Independent Claim 90
Applicant contends that the non-final Office Action improperly treated claim 90 as claim 25 in system form and cites to the following language “the server is configured to record in a blockchain each current standing bid, wherein the blockchain includes the server and the plurality of computer terminals as nodes”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that such subject matter was also recited in claim 25 and addressed in connection with claim 25 above and in the non-final Office Action. Therefore, Applicant’s contention is unpersuasive.
Applicant next contends that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application as the claim requires a specific distributed computing arrangement. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 25. Therefore, Applicant’s contention is unpersuasive.
Applicant also contends that claim 90 recites an improvement in computer-related technology as it reduces energy usage because the distribution of the incentive payments causes the auction to complete more quickly. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above in connection with claims 25 and 48. Therefore, Applicant’s contention is unpersuasive.
Applicant also contends that claim 90 recites significantly more than the abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above in connection with claims 25 and 48. Therefore, Applicant’s contention is unpersuasive.
Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant contends that Leonard fails to disclose that bidder terminals are nodes of the blockchain. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, cited ¶ 76 discloses that participating nodes in the distributed ledger network may be customers. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that Leonard fails to disclose such subject matter is unpersuasive. Further, as noted in the non-final Office Action, one of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced the database disclosed in Silbert with the blockchain database disclosed in Leonard to record the data as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to ensure that submitted bids could not be tampered with, which is a property and advantage of blockchains over conventional databases. Further, such a modification does not violate the principle of operation of Silbert. The database disclosed in Silbert is used to store data that is then manipulated by the system. Using a blockchain database rather than a conventional database would not violate the principle of operation as the blockchain database would also be used to store data that is then manipulated by the system. Therefore, Applicant’s contention that the combination of prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the independent claims is unpersuasive.
Applicant next contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the distribution of the incentive payments reduced energy usage because the distribution of the incentive payments causes the auction to complete more quickly” as reducing energy usage is not a desired result or intended use of distributing incentive payments in relation to each standing bid to parties associated with each standing bid. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites that the distribution of incentive payments reduced energy usage because the incentive payments caused the auction to complete more quickly. In other words, the claim recites that distributing the incentive payments caused the auction to be completed more quickly which caused reduced energy usage. Therefore, such subject matter is a result of distributing the incentive payments and fails to recite a patentable distinction over the prior art. Therefore, Applicant’s contention is found unpersuasive.
Applicant contends that the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fail to disclose a seller-command termination. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, Silbert at ¶27 discloses that an auction remains active until a selected end date and/or time has been reached. Therefore, Silbert does disclose such subject matter.
Accordingly, this ground of rejection is 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 25-30, 32-40, 42, 44-58, 60-64, 66, 68-70, and 86-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility. The first is that the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. See MPEP 2106(I). Here, claims 25-30, 32-42, 44-58, 60-66, 68-70, and 86-89 are directed towards a method and claims 90-91 are directed towards a machine. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims recite abstract ideas.
Per Claim 25: Claim 25, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of an auction process. In particular, the claim recites providing a starting price of an item to be auctioned to a plurality of bidders. The method then receives a bid and converts the received bid into a standing bid if the received bid exceeds the previous standing bid by a threshold. If the standing bid has increased, the method provides the standing bid to the bidders. This continues until a predefined condition is met. The process receives payment for the item in relation to the final bid and distributes incentive payments to each standing bid. The incentive payment is a portion of an amount by which the standing bid exceeds a previous standing bid. The payment is then distributed to the seller. In other words, the claim recites both Mental Processes as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
(i) a server providing a starting price of the item to a plurality of computer terminals in communication with the server, wherein the starting price is a first standing bid;
(ii) the server receiving a bid from a terminal of the plurality of terminals;
(iii) the server converting the received bid into a current standing bid in response to the received bid exceeding the previous standing bid by a threshold;
(iv) in response to the server converting the received bid into the current standing bid, the server providing the current standing bid to the plurality of computer terminals;
(v) repeating steps (ii) to (iv) until a condition is satisfied;
(vi) receiving payment for the item in relation to a final standing bid;
(vii) distributing incentive payments in relation to each standing bid, except for the final standing bid, to parties respectively associated with each standing bid, wherein each incentive payment is a portion of an amount by which the respective standing bid exceeded the previous standing bid, wherein the distribution of the incentive payments reduces energy usage because the distribution of the incentive payments causes the auction to complete more quickly;
(viii) distributing payment to the seller, which is the payment received in step (vi), minus at least the sum of the incentive payments in step (vii),
wherein the server records in a blockchain each current standing bid, wherein the blockchain includes the server and the plurality of computer terminals as nodes.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the additional elements of the server, the plurality of computer terminals, and the server and plurality of computer terminals as part of the blockchain fails to recite a practical application because they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instructions to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, as noted above, the additional elements of the server, the plurality of computer terminals, and the server and plurality of computer terminals as part of the blockchain amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 48: Claim 48, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of an auction process. In particular, the claim recites receiving a bid for an item up for auction from a plurality of bidders. The process then provides this bid to the other bidders. The process then receives a bid from one of the plurality of bidders and converts it into a standing bid if received bid exceeds the previous bid by a threshold. If the standing bid has increased, the process distributes an incentive payment in relation to the previous standing bid. The incentive payment is a portion of an amount by which the standing bid exceeds a previous standing bid. If the standing bid has increased, the server provides the standing bid to the plurality of bidders. This process repeats until the auction is terminated by the seller. In other words, the claim recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
(i) a server receiving a first bid for the digital item from a terminal of a plurality of computer terminals in communication with the server, wherein the server uses the first bid as a first standing bid;
(ii) the server providing the first standing bid to the plurality of computer terminals;
(iii) the server receiving a received bid from a terminal of the plurality of terminals;
(iv) the server converting the received bid into a current standing bid in response to the received bid exceeding the previous standing bid by a threshold;
(v) in response to the server converting the received bid into the current standing bid, distributing an incentive payment in relation to the previous standing bid, wherein the incentive payment is a portion of an amount by which the current standing bid exceeded the previous standing bid, wherein the distribution of the incentive payment reduces energy usage because the distribution of the incentive payment causes the auction to complete more quickly;
(vi) in response to the server converting the received bid into the current standing bid, the server providing the current standing bid to the plurality of computer terminals;
(vii) repeating steps (iii) to (vi) until a command is received from the seller to terminate the auction,
wherein the server records in a blockchain each standing bid, wherein the blockchain includes the server and the plurality of computer terminals as nodes.
Here, the additional elements of the server, the plurality of computer terminals, and the server and plurality of computer terminals as part of the blockchain fails to recite a practical application because they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
As noted above, the additional elements of the server, the plurality of computer terminals, and the server and plurality of computer terminals as part of the blockchain amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 48 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 90: Claim 90 recites abstract ideas similar to those discussed above in connection with claim 25, and does so in the context of a system. However, claim 90 fails to recite any additional elements not already considered in connection with claim 25. Therefore, the analysis regarding claim 25 also applies to claim 90.
Accordingly, claim 90 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claims 26-30, 32-40, 42, 44-47, 49-58, 60-64, 66, 68-70, 86-89, and 91: Claims 26-30, 32-40, 42, 44-47, 49-58, 60-64, 66, 68-70, 86-89, and 91 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 26 recites the abstract idea of receiving a payment in relation to the final standing bid, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 27 recites the abstract idea of making an incentive when the standing bid has increased, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 28 recites the abstract idea of distributing payments in relation to each standing bid, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 29 and 87 recite the abstract idea of distributing payment to the seller, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 30 recites the abstract idea that no incentive payment is distributed in relation to the starting price, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 32 recites the abstract idea that the portion is a fraction, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 33 recites the abstract idea of the auction having a time limit, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 34 recites the abstract idea that the auction stops when no new standing bid has occurred for a time period, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 35 recites the abstract idea that the threshold is a fraction of the current standing bid, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 36 recites the abstract idea that the item for auction is a digital item, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 37 recites the abstract idea of transmitting the auctioned good to the highest bidder, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 38 recites the abstract idea that the seller can set an asking price, which, if met, terminates the auction, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 39 recites the abstract idea of recording a transaction that the item was sold by a seller to a party associated with the final standing bid, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. The recitation of blockchain here fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas as it generally links the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment.
Claim 40 recites the additional element of recording the transaction as a smart contract. However, this fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas as it generally links the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment.
Claim 41 recites the abstract idea of recording each new standing bid, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 42 recites the abstract idea of recording each new standing bid, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. The additional elements of the blockchain and smart contracts fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment.
Claim 44 recites that the method is implemented in a closed computer ecosystem. However, this fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea as it is an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer.
Claim 45 recites the abstract idea of each new bid to include a reference to the current standing bid, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 46 recites the abstract idea that the payments are cryptocurrency, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 47 recites the abstract idea that all bids are fully funded, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 49 recites the abstract idea of retracting auction bids, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 50 recites the abstract idea of paying a penalty if an auction bid is withdrawn, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 51 recites the abstract idea of receiving a payment if the standing bid as increased, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 52 recites the abstract idea that there is no refund of the incentive payment when a standing bid is withdrawn, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 53 recites the abstract idea of selling the item from the seller to the highest bidder and starting a new auction with the previous standing bid, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 54 recites the abstract idea of selling the item from the seller to the highest bidder and a publisher of the item receives a commission, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 55 recites the abstract idea of the publisher receiving a commission when the standing bid has increased, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 56 recites the abstract idea that all bids are fully funded, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 57 and 86 recite the abstract idea of receiving funds for a bid, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 58 and 87 recite the abstract idea that payment is distributed to a seller, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 60 recites the abstract idea that the portion is a fraction, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 61 recites the abstract idea that the threshold is a fraction less than one, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 62 recites the abstract idea of transmitting the item to the highest bidder, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 63 recites the abstract idea of recording a transaction. The additional element of the blockchain fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas because it generally links the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment.
Claim 64 recites the abstract idea of recording a transaction. The additional elements of the blockchain and smart contracts fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas because they generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment.
Claim 66 recites the abstract idea of recording standing bids, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. The additional elements of the blockchain and smart contract fails to recite a practical application or significantl more than the abstract ideas as they generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim 68 recites that the method is implemented in a closed computer system, which fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea as it recites an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer.
Claim 69 recites the abstract idea that a submitted bid references the current standing bid, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 70 recites the abstract idea that cryptocurrency is used to make the payments, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 88-89 and 91 recite the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation to determine the incentive payment, which is a Mathematical Concept as well as a Mental Process.
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.
Claim(s) 25-26, 28-30, 33, 35-37, 44, 47-48, 51, 56-58, 61-62, and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0191591 to Silbert in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0189867 to Hu and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0300741 to Leonard et al.
Per Claim 25: Silbert discloses:
A computer implemented method of auctioning an item for a seller, and of reducing energy usage, the method including the steps of: (see Silbert at Abstract: A method and system of conducting a participation award auction is provided.)
(i) a server providing a starting price of the item to a plurality of computer terminals in communication with the server, wherein the starting price is a first standing bid; (see Silbert at ¶ 27: In order to engage in a given auction, potential bidders access the Auction System 102 and may search through all active auctions. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the Bidders 106 may access the Auction System 102 through a web browser and search through all active auctions to identify one or more auctions of interest. The Bidders 106 may then select one of the active auctions and submit a bid. Alternatively, a Bidder 106 may request that the Auction System 102 notify the Bidder 106 wherever an auction is initiated that meets a set of customizable parameters. For example, a Bidder 106 may be interested in acquiring preferred stock in a company with 2-3 million shares outstanding. As a result, the Auction System 102 may notify a Bidder 106 when an auction meeting these requirements is initiated.)
(ii) the server receiving a bid from a terminal of the plurality of terminals; (see Silbert at ¶ 30: According to the embodiment of the present invention illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, the Auction Controller Module 112 receives a bid from the Bidders 106, at step 206.)
(iii) the server converting the received bid into a current standing bid in response to the received bid (see Silbert at ¶ 30: In addition, the Auction Engine Module 116 may determine whether the bid meets an incremental bid requirement specified by the Seller 104. If the incremental bid requirement is not met, or the bid does not exceed the current highest bid, the Auction Engine Module 116 rejects the bid and the Auction Controlled Module 112 communicates to the associated Bidder 106 that the bid has been rejected.)
(iv) in response to the server converting the received bid into the current standing bid, the server providing the current standing bid to the plurality of computer terminals; (Silbert at ¶ 31: Following the confirmation that the received bid exceeds the current highest bid, and meets any applicable incremental bid requirement, the Auction Engine Module 116 updates the current highest bid and determines the one or more participating bidders, at step 208. The Auction Engine Module 116 first updates the current highest bid in response to the received bid.)
(v) repeating steps (ii) to (iv) until a condition is satisfied; (see Silbert at ¶ 37: Following the step 208 of updating the participation status of one or more bidders, the Auction Controller Module 112, waits for additional bids at step 210. According to embodiments of the present invention, the Bidders 106 may continue to place bids for a given auction while the auction is active. Upon receipt by the Auction Controller Module 112 of a new bid, at step 210, the bid is forwarded to the Auction Engine Module 116 to update the participation status of the one or more bidders involved in the auction, at step 208. In the event that no additional bids are received, process 200 continues to step 212, wherein the Auction Engine Module 116 establishes the winning bid.)
(vi) receiving payment for the item in relation to a final standing bid; (see Silbert at ¶ 41: According to certain embodiments of the present invention, following the calculation of the participation award, the Account Controller Module 114 collects the winning bid from the winning bidder, at step 216.)
(vii) distributing incentive payments in relation to each standing bid, except for the final standing bid, to parties respectively associated with each standing bid, [[wherein each incentive payment is a portion of an amount by which the respective standing bid exceeded the previous standing bid]], wherein the distribution of the incentive payments reduces energy usage because the distribution of the incentive payments causes the auction to complete more quickly; (Examiner’s Note: the claim language “wherein the distribution of the incentive payments reduces energy usage because the distribution of the incentive payments causes the auction to complete more quickly” has been considered and determined to recite a result of distributing incentive payments in relation to each standing bid. Therefore, it fails to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2111.04(I). see Silbert at ¶ 42: Following the collection of the winning bid, the Account Controller Module 114 allocates the participation award to the participating bidders. The Account Controller Module 114 utilizes the participation rule to determine which bidders are considered participating bidders. For example, if the Seller 104 selects a participation rule of “Top 5,” the bidders with the five highest bids are considered participating bidders, as shown in Table 3. Given that the participation status is updated periodically during the life of the auction, determining the participating bidders may be accomplished by consulting the current participation status of one or more of the Bidders 106. As such, the participation award may be allocated equally among the participating bidders. In alternative embodiments of the present invention, the participation rule may dictate that the participation award be unevenly allocated between the participating bidders.)
(viii) distributing payment to the seller, which is the payment received in step (vi), minus at least the sum of the incentive payments in step (vii). (see Silbert at ¶ 39: Following the determination of the winning bid, at step 212, the Auction Engine Module 114 calculates the participation award, at step 214. The participation award is calculated based on the participation award parameter defined by the Seller 104. The participation award parameter defines the portion of the winning bid that is allocated to the one or more participating bidders. For example, assume the Seller 104 for the auction reflected in Table 3 defines a participation award parameter to be 5%. Therefore, the participation award would be 5% of $45,000, or $2,250. As described above, the Seller 102 may define the participation award parameter as they see fit for a given auction. Given that the Bidders 106 are aware of the participation award parameter prior to bidding on a given auction, the Seller 104 may strike a balance between providing an adequate participation award to entice bidding without significantly diminishing the profits associated with the sale.)
However, Silbert fails to disclose, but Hu, an analogous art of auctions, discloses:
wherein each incentive payment is a portion of an amount by which the respective standing bid exceeded the previous standing bid (see Hu at ¶¶ 36-37: Assuming that the bidder gets fifty percent of the reward within the bidding increment, and that the starting price, namely, the reserve price or the base price of a certain target is 10 thousand RMB. The auction is started, the bidder A bids 10 thousand RMB, the bidder B bids 12 thousand RMB, the bidder C bids 15 thousand RMB, and the bidder D bids 19 thousand RMB. Then, the electronic commerce system whistles for three times if the prescribed time has been exceeded, and at the same time of the third time whistling, the bidding system is temporarily closed to terminate the bidding, and the bidding system confirms that the bidder D becomes the buyer at the highest bidding of 19 thousand RMB. The price bidding or bidding or bidding conditions of all the bidders are displayed on the terminal, and the transaction record comprising the bidding process is displayed. Then, the buyer D pays 19 thousand RMB to the auctioneer, among the 19 thousand RMB: the principal obtains 14.5 thousand RMB, the bidder A can only obtain 0 RMB because his bidding is not higher than the auction reserve price or the base price, the bidder B obtains 1 thousand RMB, the bidder C obtains 1.5 thousand RMB, the bidder D obtains 2 thousand RMB, and the principal, the bidder B, the bidder C, the bidder D and the buyer D respectively pay commissions to the auctioneer as contracted.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that the amount paid to the runner-up bidders is based on how much the bidders exceeded the previous standing bid using the techniques disclosed in Hu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to encourage bidders to make larger bids during an auction, thereby increasing the selling price for the seller.
However, the combination of Silbert and Hu fails to disclose but Leonard, an analogous art of bidding using blockchains, discloses:
wherein the server records in a blockchain each current standing bid, wherein the blockchain includes the server and the plurality of computer terminals as nodes. (see Leonard at ¶ 65: The bid platform 100 is configured to generate and update an interface 202 at user device 102 for electronic commerce. The bid platform 100 has a plurality of nodes providing a distributed ledger 216. Each node can include a computing device to implement part of a distributed network of computing devices. See also ¶ 65: The processor can transmit a request to store a bid event as a block on the distributed ledger 216. The block indicates a purchaser identifier and a product identifier, for example.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that the bids are stored on a blockchain using the techniques disclosed in Leonard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to ensure that submitted bids could not be tampered with, thereby increasing the integrity of the auction.
Per Claim 48: Silbert discloses:
A computer implemented method of auctioning a digital item for a seller, and of reducing energy usage, wherein the digital item was previously purchased by the seller in a computer implemented method of auctioning the digital item, the method of this Claim including the steps of: (see Silbert at Abstract: A method and system of conducting a participation award auction is provided.)
(i) a server receiving a first bid for the digital item from a terminal of a plurality of computer terminals in communication with the server, wherein the server uses the first bid as a first standing bid; (see Silbert at ¶ 30: According to the embodiment of the present invention illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, the Auction Controller Module 112 receives a bid from the Bidders 106, at step 206.)
(ii) the server providing the first standing bid to the plurality of computer terminals; (see Silbert at ¶ 31: Following the confirmation that the received bid exceeds the current highest bid, and meets any applicable incremental bid requirement, the Auction Engine Module 116 updates the current highest bid and determines the one or more participating bidders, at step 208. The Auction Engine Module 116 first updates the current highest bid in response to the received bid.)
(iii) the server receiving a received bid from a terminal of the plurality of terminals; (see Silbert at ¶ 30: According to the embodiment of the present invention illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, the Auction Controller Module 112 receives a bid from the Bidders 106, at step 206.)
(iv) the server converting the received bid into a current standing bid in response to the received bid exceeding the previous standing bid by a threshold; (see Silbert at ¶ 30: In addition, the Auction Engine Module 116 may determine whether the bid meets an incremental bid requirement specified by the Seller 104. If the incremental bid requirement is not met, or the bid does not exceed the current highest bid, the Auction Engine Module 116 rejects the bid and the Auction Controlled Module 112 communicates to the associated Bidder 106 that the bid has been rejected.)
(v) in response to the server converting the received bid into the current standing bid, distributing an incentive payment in relation to the previous standing bid, [[wherein the incentive payment is a portion of an amount by which the current standing bid exceeded the previous standing bid,]] wherein the distribution of the incentive payment reduces energy usage because the distribution of the incentive payment causes the auction to complete more quickly; (Examiner’s Note: the claim language “wherein the distribution of the incentive payments causes the auction to complete more quickly, which reduces energy usage because the auction completes more quickly” has been considered and determined to recite a result of distributing incentive payments in relation to each standing bid. Therefore, it fails to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2111.04(I). see Silbert at ¶ 42: Following the collection of the winning bid, the Account Controller Module 114 allocates the participation award to the participating bidders. The Account Controller Module 114 utilizes the participation rule to determine which bidders are considered participating bidders. For example, if the Seller 104 selects a participation rule of “Top 5,” the bidders with the five highest bids are considered participating bidders, as shown in Table 3. Given that the participation status is updated periodically during the life of the auction, determining the participating bidders may be accomplished by consulting the current participation status of one or more of the Bidders 106. As such, the participation award may be allocated equally among the participating bidders. In alternative embodiments of the present invention, the participation rule may dictate that the participation award be unevenly allocated between the participating bidders.)
(vi) in response to the server converting the received bid into the current standing bid, the server providing the current standing bid to the plurality of computer terminals; (see Silbert at ¶ 31: Following the confirmation that the received bid exceeds the current highest bid, and meets any applicable incremental bid requirement, the Auction Engine Module 116 updates the current highest bid and determines the one or more participating bidders, at step 208. The Auction Engine Module 116 first updates the current highest bid in response to the received bid.)
(vii) repeating steps (iii) to (vi) until a command is received from the seller to terminate the auction. (see Silbert at ¶ 37: Following the step 208 of updating the participation status of one or more bidders, the Auction Controller Module 112, waits for additional bids at step 210. According to embodiments of the present invention, the Bidders 106 may continue to place bids for a given auction while the auction is active. Upon receipt by the Auction Controller Module 112 of a new bid, at step 210, the bid is forwarded to the Auction Engine Module 116 to update the participation status of the one or more bidders involved in the auction, at step 208. In the event that no additional bids are received, process 200 continues to step 212, wherein the Auction Engine Module 116 establishes the winning bid.)
However, Silbert fails to disclose, but Hu discloses:
wherein each incentive payment is a portion of an amount by which the respective standing bid exceeded the previous standing bid (see Hu at ¶¶ 36-37: Assuming that the bidder gets fifty percent of the reward within the bidding increment, and that the starting price, namely, the reserve price or the base price of a certain target is 10 thousand RMB. The auction is started, the bidder A bids 10 thousand RMB, the bidder B bids 12 thousand RMB, the bidder C bids 15 thousand RMB, and the bidder D bids 19 thousand RMB. Then, the electronic commerce system whistles for three times if the prescribed time has been exceeded, and at the same time of the third time whistling, the bidding system is temporarily closed to terminate the bidding, and the bidding system confirms that the bidder D becomes the buyer at the highest bidding of 19 thousand RMB. The price bidding or bidding or bidding conditions of all the bidders are displayed on the terminal, and the transaction record comprising the bidding process is displayed. Then, the buyer D pays 19 thousand RMB to the auctioneer, among the 19 thousand RMB: the principal obtains 14.5 thousand RMB, the bidder A can only obtain 0 RMB because his bidding is not higher than the auction reserve price or the base price, the bidder B obtains 1 thousand RMB, the bidder C obtains 1.5 thousand RMB, the bidder D obtains 2 thousand RMB, and the principal, the bidder B, the bidder C, the bidder D and the buyer D respectively pay commissions to the auctioneer as contracted.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that the amount paid to the runner-up bidders is based on how much the bidders exceeded the previous standing bid using the techniques disclosed in Hu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to encourage bidders to make larger bids during an auction, thereby increasing the selling price for the seller.
However, the combination of Silbert and Hu fails to disclose but Leonard discloses:
wherein the server records in a blockchain each current standing bid, wherein the blockchain includes the server and the plurality of computer terminals as nodes. (see Leonard at ¶ 65: The bid platform 100 is configured to generate and update an interface 202 at user device 102 for electronic commerce. The bid platform 100 has a plurality of nodes providing a distributed ledger 216. Each node can include a computing device to implement part of a distributed network of computing devices. See also ¶ 65: The processor can transmit a request to store a bid event as a block on the distributed ledger 216. The block indicates a purchaser identifier and a product identifier, for example.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that the bids are stored on a blockchain using the techniques disclosed in Leonard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to ensure that submitted bids could not be tampered with, thereby increasing the integrity of the auction.
Per Claim 90: Claim 90 recites subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 25, and does so in the context of a server, which Silbert discloses (see Silbert at Abstract: A method and system of conducting a participation award auction is provided.)
Per Claim 26: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 26 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein in step (vi) the server receives the payment for the item in relation to the final standing bid. (see Silbert at ¶ 41: According to certain embodiments of the present invention, following the calculation of the participation award, the Account Controller Module 114 collects the winning bid from the winning bidder, at step 216.)
Per Claim 28: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 28 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein in step (vii) the server distributes the incentive payments in relation to each standing bid. (see Silbert at ¶ 42: Following the collection of the winning bid, the Account Controller Module 114 allocates the participation award to the participating bidders. The Account Controller Module 114 utilizes the participation rule to determine which bidders are considered participating bidders. For example, if the Seller 104 selects a participation rule of “Top 5,” the bidders with the five highest bids are considered participating bidders, as shown in Table 3. Given that the participation status is updated periodically during the life of the auction, determining the participating bidders may be accomplished by consulting the current participation status of one or more of the Bidders 106. As such, the participation award may be allocated equally among the participating bidders. In alternative embodiments of the present invention, the participation rule may dictate that the participation award be unevenly allocated between the participating bidders.)
Per Claim 29: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 29 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein in step (viii) the server distributes the payment to the seller. (see Silbert at ¶ 39: Following the determination of the winning bid, at step 212, the Auction Engine Module 114 calculates the participation award, at step 214. The participation award is calculated based on the participation award parameter defined by the Seller 104. The participation award parameter defines the portion of the winning bid that is allocated to the one or more participating bidders. For example, assume the Seller 104 for the auction reflected in Table 3 defines a participation award parameter to be 5%. Therefore, the participation award would be 5% of $45,000, or $2,250. As described above, the Seller 102 may define the participation award parameter as they see fit for a given auction. Given that the Bidders 106 are aware of the participation award parameter prior to bidding on a given auction, the Seller 104 may strike a balance between providing an adequate participation award to entice bidding without significantly diminishing the profits associated with the sale.)
Per Claim 30: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 30 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein no incentive payment is distributed in relation to the starting price. (see Silbert at ¶ 42: Following the collection of the winning bid, the Account Controller Module 114 allocates the participation award to the participating bidders. The Account Controller Module 114 utilizes the participation rule to determine which bidders are considered participating bidders. For example, if the Seller 104 selects a participation rule of “Top 5,” the bidders with the five highest bids are considered participating bidders, as shown in Table 3. Given that the participation status is updated periodically during the life of the auction, determining the participating bidders may be accomplished by consulting the current participation status of one or more of the Bidders 106. As such, the participation award may be allocated equally among the participating bidders. In alternative embodiments of the present invention, the participation rule may dictate that the participation award be unevenly allocated between the participating bidders.)
Per Claim 33: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 33 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the condition in step (v) is that a time limit for a total time for the auction is reached. (see Silbert at ¶ 19: The auction parameters may include, but are not limited to, a subject of the auction, a duration of the auction, a bid increment, a reserve price, a participation award, and a participation rule.)
Per Claim 35: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 35 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the threshold in step (iii) is a fraction less than one, of the current standing bid. (see Silbert at ¶ 22: As illustrated in FIG. 3, in this example, 66,083 shares of common stock are posted for sale with a reserve price of $1.25 per share and a bid increment of $0.10 a share.)
Per Claim 36: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 36 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the item is a digital item. (see Silbert at ¶ 19: The subject of the auction may be any product and/or service which the Seller 104 wishes to transfer, and may include any tangible property or intangible property.)
Per Claim 37: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 36, from which claim 37 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the server transmits the digital item to a party associated with the final standing bid. (see Silbert at ¶ 19: The subject of the auction may be any product and/or service which the Seller 104 wishes to transfer, and may include any tangible property or intangible property. According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the subject may be a stock, bond, warrant, or other type of financial instrument. For example, the subject of an auction is a financial instrument, the subject of the auction may be defined as 1,000 shares of common stock in ABC Corp. In this example, a reserve price and a bid increment may be expressed in reference to a single share of the ABC Corp. stock or based on the entire bundle of shares.)
Per Claim 44: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 44 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the method is implemented in a closed computer ecosystem. (see Silbert at ¶ 18: Network 100 and the Auction System 102 represent computer hardware and/or computer-implemented software modules configured to perform the functions described in detail below. One having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the components of the Data Network 100 may be implemented on one or more communicatively connected computers.)
Per Claim 47: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 47 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein all bids are fully funded. (see Silbert at ¶ 28: During the screening process, a potential bidder is provides the Auction Controller Module 112 with relevant financial information to confirm the bidder possesses adequate capital to realistically engage in a given auction.)
Per Claim 51: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 51 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein in response to the server converting the received bid into the current standing bid, a payment must be received from a bidder for the current standing bid, to provide payment for the incentive payment to a bidder for the previous standing bid. (see Silbert at ¶ 41: According to certain embodiments of the present invention, following the calculation of the participation award, the Account Controller Module 114 collects the winning bid from the winning bidder, at step 216.)
Per Claim 56: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 56 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein all bids are fully funded. (see Silbert at ¶ 28: During the screening process, a potential bidder is provides the Auction Controller Module 112 with relevant financial information to confirm the bidder possesses adequate capital to realistically engage in a given auction.)
Per Claim 57: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 57 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein in step (v) in response to the server converting the received bid into the current standing bid, funding for the bid is received. (see Silbert at ¶ 41: According to certain embodiments of the present invention, following the calculation of the participation award, the Account Controller Module 114 collects the winning bid from the winning bidder, at step 216.)
Per Claim 58: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 58 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein after step (viii) the payment is distributed to the seller. (see Silbert at ¶ 39: Following the determination of the winning bid, at step 212, the Auction Engine Module 114 calculates the participation award, at step 214. The participation award is calculated based on the participation award parameter defined by the Seller 104. The participation award parameter defines the portion of the winning bid that is allocated to the one or more participating bidders. For example, assume the Seller 104 for the auction reflected in Table 3 defines a participation award parameter to be 5%. Therefore, the participation award would be 5% of $45,000, or $2,250. As described above, the Seller 102 may define the participation award parameter as they see fit for a given auction. Given that the Bidders 106 are aware of the participation award parameter prior to bidding on a given auction, the Seller 104 may strike a balance between providing an adequate participation award to entice bidding without significantly diminishing the profits associated with the sale.)
Per Claim 61: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 61 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the threshold in step (iv) is a fraction less than one of the current standing bid. (see Silbert at ¶ 22: As illustrated in FIG. 3, in this example, 66,083 shares of common stock are posted for sale with a reserve price of $1.25 per share and a bid increment of $0.10 a share.)
Per Claim 62: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 62 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the server transmits the digital item to a party associated with the final standing bid. (see Silbert at ¶ 19: The subject of the auction may be any product and/or service which the Seller 104 wishes to transfer, and may include any tangible property or intangible property. According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the subject may be a stock, bond, warrant, or other type of financial instrument. For example, the subject of an auction is a financial instrument, the subject of the auction may be defined as 1,000 shares of common stock in ABC Corp. In this example, a reserve price and a bid increment may be expressed in reference to a single share of the ABC Corp. stock or based on the entire bundle of shares.)
Per Claim 68: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 68 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the method is implemented in a closed computer ecosystem. (see Silbert at ¶ 18: Network 100 and the Auction System 102 represent computer hardware and/or computer-implemented software modules configured to perform the functions described in detail below. One having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the components of the Data Network 100 may be implemented on one or more communicatively connected computers.)
Per Claim 86: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 57, from which claim 86 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the funding for the bid is received by the server. (see Silbert at ¶ 41: According to certain embodiments of the present invention, following the calculation of the participation award, the Account Controller Module 114 collects the winning bid from the winning bidder, at step 216.)
Per Claim 87: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 58, from which claim 87 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the payment is distributed to the seller by the server. (see Silbert at ¶ 39: Following the determination of the winning bid, at step 212, the Auction Engine Module 114 calculates the participation award, at step 214. The participation award is calculated based on the participation award parameter defined by the Seller 104. The participation award parameter defines the portion of the winning bid that is allocated to the one or more participating bidders. For example, assume the Seller 104 for the auction reflected in Table 3 defines a participation award parameter to be 5%. Therefore, the participation award would be 5% of $45,000, or $2,250. As described above, the Seller 102 may define the participation award parameter as they see fit for a given auction. Given that the Bidders 106 are aware of the participation award parameter prior to bidding on a given auction, the Seller 104 may strike a balance between providing an adequate participation award to entice bidding without significantly diminishing the profits associated with the sale.)
Claim(s) 34, 39-43, and 63-67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silbert, Hu, and Leonard as applied to claim 25 and 48 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0013025 to Verma et al.
Per Claim 34: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 34 depends. However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fails to disclose, but Verma, an analogous art of blockchain transactions, discloses:
wherein the condition in step (v) is that a time limit for no new standing bid occurring is reached. (see Verma at ¶ 31: For instance, being able to close an auction being conducted on a blockchain platform, if no new bids have been placed for a certain period of time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that one of the auction parameters is ending the auction when no bids have been received for a certain amount of time using the techniques disclosed in Verma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable sellers to timely end an auction.
Per Claim 39: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 39 depends. However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leoanrd fails to disclose, but Verma discloses:
wherein the server records in a blockchain a transaction in which the item was sold by the seller to a party associated with the final standing bid. (see Verma at ¶ 44: The orderer nodes 112 announces the deferred blockchain transaction to the other orderer nodes 112 by placing this transaction in the shared transaction bucket 136 and is also recorded on the blockchain for auditing.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verma so that transactions are recorded in a blockchain using the techniques disclosed in Verma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the increased security blockchain technology offers.
Per Claim 40: The combination of Silbert, Hu, Leonard, and Verma discloses the subject matter of claim 3 9, from which claim 40 depends. However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fails to disclose, but Verma discloses:
wherein the server records the transaction in the blockchain as a smart contract. (see Verma at ¶ 61: The smart contract may write data to the blockchain in the format of key-value pairs. Furthermore, the smart contract code can read the values stored in a blockchain and use them in application operations. The smart contract code can write the output of various logic operations into the blockchain. The code may be used to create a temporary data structure in a virtual machine or other computing platform. Data written to the blockchain can be public and/or can be encrypted and maintained as private. The temporary data that is used/generated by the smart contract is held in memory by the supplied execution environment, then deleted once the data needed for the blockchain is identified.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that transactions are recorded in smart contracts on a blockchain using the techniques disclosed in Verma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the increased security blockchain technology offers.
Per Claim 42: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 42 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the server records each new standing bid [[in the blockchain as a smart contract.]] (see Silbert at ¶ 24: This may include creating entries within the Database 118 used to store the auction parameters, bidder information, participation status for engaged bidders, and other information utilized to conduct an auction.)
However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fails to disclose, but Verma discloses storing data as smart contracts on a blockchain (see Verma at ¶ 61: The smart contract may write data to the blockchain in the format of key-value pairs. Furthermore, the smart contract code can read the values stored in a blockchain and use them in application operations. The smart contract code can write the output of various logic operations into the blockchain. The code may be used to create a temporary data structure in a virtual machine or other computing platform. Data written to the blockchain can be public and/or can be encrypted and maintained as private. The temporary data that is used/generated by the smart contract is held in memory by the supplied execution environment, then deleted once the data needed for the blockchain is identified.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that transactions are recorded in smart contracts on a blockchain using the techniques disclosed in Verma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the increased security blockchain technology offers.
Per Claim 63: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 63 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the server records [[in a blockchain]] a transaction in which the item was sold by the seller to a party associated with the final standing bid. (see Silbert at ¶ 24: This may include creating entries within the Database 118 used to store the auction parameters, bidder information, participation status for engaged bidders, and other information utilized to conduct an auction.)
However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fails to disclose, but Verma discloses storing data to a blockchain (see Verma at ¶ 44: The orderer nodes 112 announces the deferred blockchain transaction to the other orderer nodes 112 by placing this transaction in the shared transaction bucket 136 and is also recorded on the blockchain for auditing.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verma so that transactions are recorded in a blockchain using the techniques disclosed in Verma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the increased security blockchain technology offers.
Per Claim 64: The combination of Silbert, Hu, Leonard, and Verma discloses the subject matter of claim 63, from which claim 64 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the server records each transaction in the blockchain as a smart contract. (see Verma at ¶ 61: The smart contract may write data to the blockchain in the format of key-value pairs. Furthermore, the smart contract code can read the values stored in a blockchain and use them in application operations. The smart contract code can write the output of various logic operations into the blockchain. The code may be used to create a temporary data structure in a virtual machine or other computing platform. Data written to the blockchain can be public and/or can be encrypted and maintained as private. The temporary data that is used/generated by the smart contract is held in memory by the supplied execution environment, then deleted once the data needed for the blockchain is identified.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that transactions are recorded in smart contracts on a blockchain using the techniques disclosed in Verma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the increased security blockchain technology offers.
Per Claim 66: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 66 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein the server records each standing bid [[in the blockchain as a smart contract]]. (see Silbert at ¶ 24: This may include creating entries within the Database 118 used to store the auction parameters, bidder information, participation status for engaged bidders, and other information utilized to conduct an auction.)
However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fails to disclose, but Verma discloses storing data as smart contracts on a blockchain (see Verma at ¶ 61: The smart contract may write data to the blockchain in the format of key-value pairs. Furthermore, the smart contract code can read the values stored in a blockchain and use them in application operations. The smart contract code can write the output of various logic operations into the blockchain. The code may be used to create a temporary data structure in a virtual machine or other computing platform. Data written to the blockchain can be public and/or can be encrypted and maintained as private. The temporary data that is used/generated by the smart contract is held in memory by the supplied execution environment, then deleted once the data needed for the blockchain is identified.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that transactions are recorded in smart contracts on a blockchain using the techniques disclosed in Verma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the increased security blockchain technology offers.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silbert, Hu, and Leonard as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0110664 to Bellomo et al.
Per Claim 38: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 25, from which claim 38 depends. However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fails to disclose, but Bellomo, an analogous art of auctions, discloses:
wherein the seller can set an asking price that, if met, terminates the auction. (see Bellomo at ¶ 59: In an aspect of the invention, any of the following three termination conditions will terminate an auction: (i) a bid-ask match where a bid price from a buyer matches (or exceeds) the ask price provided by the automated system 108; (ii) a bid-ask match where the automated system 108 publishes an ask price that matches (or is less than) a bid price; or (iii) the time clock for an auction runs out without a winning bid price.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that the seller may set a price at which an auction terminates using the techniques disclosed in Bellomo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable the seller to have greater customization options for how to run the auction.
Claim(s) 46 and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silbert, Hu, and Leonard as applied to claims 25 and 48 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0120567 to Van Rooyen et al.
Per Claims 46 and 70: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claims 26 and 48, from which claims 46 and 70 depend, respectively. However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fails to disclose, but Van Rooyen, an analogous art of cryptocurrency transactions, discloses:
wherein the payments are cryptocurrency payments. (see Van Rooyen at ¶ 79: The principles and functioning of such cryptocurrencies having shared transaction ledgers containing transaction records will be well understood by those skilled in the art.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that buyers use cryptocurrency to complete a transaction using the techniques disclosed in Van Rooyen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable bidders to bid using a variety of currencies.
Claim(s) 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silbert, Hu, and Leonard as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0027792 to Smith.
Per Claim 49: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 49 depends. However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fails to disclose, but Smith, an analogous art of auctions, discloses:
wherein any respective bid may be retracted using a respective terminal of the plurality of terminals at any time before the command is received from the seller to terminate the auction. (see Smith at ¶ 57: Preferably, if a bidder retracts his bid at any time, the deposit the bidder has provided in order to submit the bid will be forfeited.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that buyers may cancel their bids using the techniques disclosed in Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable bidders to back out.
Per Claim 50: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 50 depends. However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fails to disclose, but Smith discloses:
wherein if the current standing bid is withdrawn, a penalty payment must be received. (Examiner’s Note: this claim element has been considered and determined to recite a contingent element. Therefore, it is interpreted according to MPEP 2111.05(II). Because this element is not required to be performed, it fails to distinguish over the prior art. However, for compact prosecution purposes, the following citation is provided: see Smith at ¶ 57: Preferably, if a bidder retracts his bid at any time, the deposit the bidder has provided in order to submit the bid will be forfeited.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that there is a penalty for withdrawing a bid using the techniques disclosed in Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to deter bidders from making non-serious bids.
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silbert, Hu, and Leonard as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0262475 to Gavriline et al.
Per Claim 54: The combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard discloses the subject matter of claim 48, from which claim 54 depends. Silbert further discloses:
wherein after the command is received from the seller to terminate the auction, the digital item is sold from the seller to the holder of the highest standing bid, and (see Silbert at ¶ 19: The subject of the auction may be any product and/or service which the Seller 104 wishes to transfer, and may include any tangible property or intangible property. According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the subject may be a stock, bond, warrant, or other type of financial instrument. For example, the subject of an auction is a financial instrument, the subject of the auction may be defined as 1,000 shares of common stock in ABC Corp. In this example, a reserve price and a bid increment may be expressed in reference to a single share of the ABC Corp. stock or based on the entire bundle of shares.)
However, the combination of Silbert, Hu, and Leonard fails to disclose, but Gavriline, an analogous art of an online marketplace, discloses:
a publisher of the digital item receives a commission payment. (see Gavriline at ¶ 18: Specifically, this allows publishers and other interested parties to monetize their user base via earning commissions, and/or fees, and/or otherwise benefit from transactions and/or other activities of their "downstream" users conducted on various other venues associated with the said online marketplace.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silbert so that publishers of the content receive a payment using the techniques disclosed in Gavriline. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to compensate creators of digital works.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0081793 discloses a system and method providing for communication and resolution of utility functions between participants, wherein the utility function is evaluated based on local information at the recipient to determine a cost value thereof. A user interface having express representation of both information elements, and associated reliability of the information. An automated system for optimally conveying information based on relevance and reliability.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0108125 discloses systems and methods for trading products and services over a computer network, such as the Internet. In one embodiment, the invention provides a method for trading financial products over a computer network. The system ranks buyers based on the likelihood that they will bid on the products being offered. The system can track the users by certain user information, as well as block a certain user's access to the system based on the user's information.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0204733 discloses that potential ghost bidding and non-serious bidding in an automated auction is detected and alerted to a user by retrieving by a computer one or more historical automated auction records related to an offering party in a current automated auction; detecting by a computer the retrieved records that a same or similar item is being offered in the current automated auction that has been offered in a previous automated auction; responsive to the detecting, increasing a ghost bidding likelihood parameter by a computer; determining by a computer that a bidder in the current automated auction also bid in one or more of the historical automated auctions; responsive to the determining, increasing by a computer the ghost bidding likelihood parameter; and alerting a user of the current automated auction of the ghost bidding likelihood parameter for each determined bidder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILESH B KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7083. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Monday-Friday, alternating Fridays off.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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.
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights