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 .
Detailed Action
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 05/04/2026.
Claims 1 and 8 – 14 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments and remarks of 05/04/2026 have been entered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 and 8 – 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step One of analysis, the claims recite an apparatus; therefore, the claims recite appropriate subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims set forth steps for storing and scoring data to be evaluated and determined to be the most advantageous for a final, suggested bid. These claim describe a mental process of observations (receiving a plurality of bids), evaluations (determine magnitude of difference), judgments and opinions (scoring, weighing, and comparing). A mental process is categorized as an abstract idea.
Claim 1 contains the elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
An artificially intelligent communications apparatus, comprising:
(a) a central processing unit;
(b) a first database storing a numerically quantifiable first attribute, said first database being in communication with said central processing unit;
(c) a second database storing a numerically quantifiable second attribute, said second database being in communication with said central processing unit;
(d) a third database storing a numerically quantifiable third attribute, said third database being in communication with said central processing unit;
(e) an input communications channel for receiving a plurality of bids in a particular auction for a particular property, each of said bids comprising a numerical value for the first, second and third numerically quantifiable attributes and bid identification information;
(f) a non-volatile memory bearing a software program, said software program controlling said central processing unit:
(i) to store, for each bid, said first, second and third numerically quantifiable attributes and their associated bid identification information together with information whether the bid was selected,
(ii) for a particular auction select those bids in which said second and third numerically quantifiable attributes are the same or within a specified numerical range and store the same in a first normalized database,
(iii) for a particular auction select those bids in which said first and third numerically quantifiable attributes are the same or within a specified numerical range and store the same in a second normalized database,
(iv) for a particular auction select those bids in which said first and second numerically quantifiable attributes are the same or within a specified numerical range and store the same in a third normalized database,
(v) for said first numerically quantifiable attribute determine a magnitude of difference in said first numerically quantifiable attribute causing a bid selection compared to less favorable rejected bids within said first normalized database by comparing bids within said first normalized database to each other to generate a first marginal driver;
(vi) for said second numerically quantifiable attribute determine a magnitude of difference in said second numerically quantifiable attribute causing a bid selection compared to less favorable rejected bids within said second normalized database by comparing bids within said second normalized database to each other to generate a second marginal driver; and
(vii) for said third numerically quantifiable attribute determine a magnitude of difference in said third numerically quantifiable attribute causing a bid selection compared to less favorable rejected bids within said third normalized database by comparing bids within said third normalized database to each other to generate a third marginal driver; and
(g) for a selected bid from said agent:
(i) generating a first scoring component by applying a first weighting factor to said first numerically quantifiable attribute, said first weighing factor being calculated from said first marginal driver;
(ii) generating a second scoring component by applying a second weighting factor to said second numerically quantifiable attribute, said second weighting factor being calculated from said second marginal driver and
(iii) generating a third scoring component by applying a third weighting factor to said third numerically quantifiable attribute, said third weighting factor being calculated from said third marginal driver;
(h) generating a bid score for said selected bid based on said first scoring component, said second scoring component, and said third scoring component;
(i) comparing said bid score for said selected bid to scores associated with other bids on the same property;
(j) determining said selected bid is below at least one of said scores of said other bids by a predetermined threshold;
(k) generating a suggested bid based on the determination that said selected bid is below at least one of said scores of said other bids by a predetermined threshold; and
(l) providing said suggested bid to said agent for amending said selected bid.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claim 1 recites only the following additional elements:
(a) a central processing unit;
(b) a first database;
(c) a second database;
(d) a third database;
(e) an input communications channel;
(f) a non-volatile memory bearing a software program, said software program controlling said central processing unit;
a first normalized database;
a second normalized database;
a third normalized database.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [64-65 and 95-97], and Figures 2 and 10, as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that amended claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (a central processing unit; a first database; a second database; a third database; an input communications channel; a nonvolatile memory bearing a software program, a first normalized database; a second normalized database; a third normalized database), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 8, 11, and 14, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. References to term of exclusive representation, commission, or price bid for listing; historical data; and broker sales history, including successful sales, are further refinements of the data that is stored and make up the data that is to be evaluated and judged. Thus, they are directed to the abstract idea identified. Furthermore, these claims just recite implementing the abstract idea on a computer – the apparatus of claim 1. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 9, 10, 12, and 13, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. References to comparing bids, amending bids, and, applying at least one weighting factor and determining a magnitude of difference between bid attributes, are further refinements of the evaluation to be performed in order to make a judgment or opinion as to what is the best bid. Therefore, they are directed to the abstract idea identified. Furthermore, these claims just recite implementing the abstract idea on a computer - the apparatus of claim 1. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 and 8 – 14, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 12. Applicant’s arguments contend that the amended claims “recite a specific machine-implemented bid-scoring architecture that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and, in any event, recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.” Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant has amended claim 1 and added more concepts that are directed to evaluations, judgments, and opinions – or, a mental process. The newly added elements of scoring is broadly defined as a calculation performed and applying weighting factors disclosed as comparison of bids against other bids, based on the statistical data gathered from a plurality of bids. These newly added steps then, in combination with other elements, set forth the evaluation method identified and detailed earlier. Applicant further argues, on page 13, the amended claims recite how the comparison is performed and how the suggested bid is generated. This argument would further support the Examiner’s conclusions the that amended claims set for a method for evaluation (comparison) and opinion (suggest a bid). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant adds that the amended claims recite a particular apparatus having multiple databases, normalized databases, a communications channel, non-volatile memory, and a central processing unit controlled by software to execute a specific multi-stage bid-scoring sequence. This is accurate in that it supports a conclusion, at Step 2A, Prong Two, that the amended claim is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). As detailed above, amended claim 1 includes only the following additional elements: a central processing unit; a first database; a second database; a third database; an input communications channel; a nonvolatile memory bearing a software program, a first normalized database; a second normalized database; a third normalized database. These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [64-65 and 95-97], and Figures 2 and 10, as filed. Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant adds arguments discussing analysis at Step 2B. See page 15. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. The Examiner has determined that amended claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (a central processing unit; a first database; a second database; a third database; an input communications channel; a nonvolatile memory bearing a software program, a first normalized database; a second normalized database; a third normalized database), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant’s final argument regarding that the “amended claim's specific arrangement of normalized databases, marginal drivers, weighting factors, scoring components, threshold-based score comparison, and suggested-bid communication provides an inventive concept sufficient to satisfy Step 2B”, is not persuasive. See page 15. Analysis at Step 2B notes that limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include those delineated at MPEP 2106.05. However, the Examiner has concluded that the amended claim 1 recites only a generic apparatus; see Specification 64 – 65 and 95. This broad and generic disclosure of the apparatus required describes neither a specific arrangement nor specialized components. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Regarding claim 1, prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Based upon amendments to the claims and updated research, the Examiner maintains the conclusion detailed within the Office Action filed 11/03/2025.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571)272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights