DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action in response to the applicant’s amendment filed September 8, 2025. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to a longstanding commercial practice because traditional real estate sales did not involve online displays of offers or automatic notifications. Applicant further contends that the claimed steps cannot be achieved by human activity alone. These arguments are unpersuasive.
The claims recite the following sequence of operations: registering buyer and seller terminals, receiving property information and offers, calculating total offer values, initiating a timer when an offer meets seller-defined criteria, notifying parties of an offer, and updating a listing upon expiration of the timer. These steps amount to facilitating a property transaction using generic computer components. Facilitating commercial transactions, including receiving offers, comparing them to seller terms, and notifying parties of results, is a fundamental economic practice and therefore an abstract idea.
Applicant’s attempt to distinguish traditional real estate sales is not determinative. The fact that the claimed method uses computers to display offers or to notify parties does not remove the claim from the category of abstract ideas. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that claims directed to “new” or “different” methods of carrying out economic activity remain abstract when they do not improve technology itself.
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the concept into a practical application by requiring specific features such as option-value calculations, timers, and automatic notifications. These arguments are not persuasive.
The recited elements—such as assigning option values, computing totals, initiating timers, and sending notifications—are all basic computer functions performed in their expected manner. The Specification does not describe these as improvements to computer technology or as solving a technical problem in computing networks. Instead, the elements simply automate steps of a property transaction using conventional computer functions. Automation of an abstract process by a generic computer does not constitute integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Applicant further argues that the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of features and therefore contain an inventive concept, analogizing to BASCOM and McRO. The Examiner disagrees.
Unlike McRO, where claims recited a specific rule set that improved computer animation, the instant claims do not improve computer functionality. They simply apply conventional computer processing (receiving inputs, performing calculations, triggering timers, updating displays) to the business context of property sales. Similarly, BASCOM found eligibility where the claimed architecture provided a specific and technical improvement to filtering on distributed networks. The instant claims recite no comparable improvement to the functioning of computers or networks.
Applicant’s argument that the claimed system is “different from traditional real estate” is not dispositive. A new or unconventional business practice is not the same as a non-conventional technological solution. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The steps of registering terminals, comparing prices, initiating timers, and updating listings represent routine and conventional computer implementation of a business method. When viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the claims do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category Analysis (MPEP § 2106.03)
The claim falls within the "process" category under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion for Step 1: The claim falls within a statutory category (process) and proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One: Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception (MPEP § 2106.04)
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Analysis
The claim recites steps related to facilitating a property sale using a bid management platform.
These steps include receiving seller and buyer information, calculating offer values, sending notifications, and managing bids.
The claim fundamentally involves a method of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions and sales negotiations, which courts have consistently found to be abstract ideas.
Specifically, the claim falls under "certain methods of organizing human activity" (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)), which is a recognized category of abstract ideas.
Conclusion for Step 2A, Prong One:The claim recites an abstract idea (facilitating a property sale, a method of organizing human activity) and proceeds to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Whether the Claim Integrates the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application (MPEP § 2106.05)
In Step 2A, Prong Two, we determine whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, meaning it improves technology or a technological field.
Analysis
The claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or solve a technological problem.
The bid management platform performs routine functions such as receiving input, processing data, and sending notifications, which do not improve computing technology.
There is no specific improvement to the bid management platform itself—it merely automates standard real estate sales techniques.
Displaying a listing on a website does not make it patent-eligible because it is a conventional use of the Internet (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
The use of a timer to manage an offer window is merely a business rule and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion for Step 2A, Prong Two:The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it fails to improve technology or a technological process.
Proceed to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept Analysis (MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Under Step 2B, we determine whether the claim includes an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Analysis
The claim does not add an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea.
The bid management platform is a generic computing system performing basic data processing operations.
There is no unconventional technical solution—the claim simply implements an existing business practice on a generic computer.
The steps (e.g., receiving, calculating, sending notifications) are routine and conventional in online marketplaces.
Conclusion for Step 2B:The claim lacks an inventive concept because it merely automates a business process on a generic computer.
Final Determination: Not Patent-Eligible Under § 101
Regarding Claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 merely set forth further embellishments to the abstract idea, and therefore do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if this rejection could be overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The allowable features are as follows:
“…receiving, at a bid management platform, a buying power amount associated with a first one of the plurality of buyer terminals before the first one of the plurality of terminals submits an offer;
by the bid management platform, starting an offer timer window when the second total offer value meets or exceeds the first total offer”
Mozley discloses receiving, at a bid management platform, a buying power amount associated with the buyer terminal (Mozley: paragraphs [0158], [0168], [0172]-[0175] - sending from the auction system an email notifying the seller that the property is to be sold to the auction winner if the bid price is higher or equal to the start price and the bidder accepts the sellers terms and conditions); by the bid management platform, starting an offer timer window (Mozley: paragraphs [0018], [0119], [0130] - receiving at the auction system from the seller extensive data instructing the auction system to start the auction for a two week period from a start date (offer window timer));. PTO 892 Reference U discloses When auction meets fixed price: A theoretical and empirical examination of buy-it-now auctions. Neither Mozley, PTO 892 Reference U nor any of the other cited references teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious receiving, at a bid management platform, a buying power amount associated with a first one of the plurality of buyer terminals before the first one of the plurality of terminals submits an offer;
by the bid management platform, starting an offer timer window when the second total offer value meets or exceeds the first total offer
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G PALAVECINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached at 571-272-6740. 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.
KATHLEEN GAGE PALAVECINO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN PALAVECINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688