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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s remarks filed 4/15/2025 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 5, 10-11, 36-39 are pending and stand rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/1/2026 has been entered.
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.
1. Claims 1, 5, 10-11, 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5, 10-11, 36-39 are directed to facilitating an auction and a series of sub-auctions and tracking auction status, which is considered both a fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction. Each of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1, 5, 10-11, 36-39 recite a system comprising a machine readable storage medium and a processor. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which an auction and a series of sub-auctions are facilitated, and auction statuses are tracked, including through the facilitation of sales activities, in the following limitations:
receive bids for a multi-item multi-unit XOR (MIMU-XOR) auction, each bid including a bid span (s), a bid value (v), a bidder identity (p), and a time of bid placement (t);
track a status of each sub-auction of the MIMU-XOR auction, the status for each sub-auction comprising a value of the respective sub-auction and a last winning bid of the respective sub-auction,
wherein each sub-auction is defined by a particular span (X) and bidder coalition (P) and includes only bids that are placed on X or smaller spans by bidders from coalition P,
wherein a first array structure VAL[X, P] stores a current value of sub-auction [X, P] and a second array structure LastWinBid[X, P] stores a latest winning bid of sub- auction [X, P],
wherein, after a new bid b =<s,v,p,t> is submitted, the processor loops through all sub-auctions [X,P] to make incremental updates by:
checking if bid b belongs to sub-auction [X,P], where bid b belongs to sub-auction [X,P] if and only if its span s contains no more units on each item than span X and pϵP;
checking if sub-auction [X,P] needs updating, where sub-auction [X,P] needs to be updated if and only if v + VAL[X-s, P\p] > VAL[X,P]; and
in response to [X,P] needing updating, updating sub-auction [X,P] as follows: VAL[X,P] = v + VAL[X-s, P\p] and LastWinBid[X,P] = b; and
determine bidder support information comprising winning levels, deadness levels, winning bids, and live bids based on the status of each sub-auction including:
receiving a winning level query from a bidder p for a span s and returning a value difference between an entire auction and a complementary sub-auction, where winning level for sub-auction [s,p] is computed as VAL[N, P] - VAL[N-s, P \p], where N is a span of the entire auction and P is a coalition that contains all bidders;
initializing an empty array VCS [s,p] and looping through bidder coalitions P to add coalitions to VCS[s,p] by checking whether a coalition belongs to VCS[s,p]:
receiving a deadness level query from bidder p for span s and determining a smallest value among sub-auctions whose bidder coalitions belong to VCS[s,p], where the deadness level is computed as a minimum of VAL[s,Q] for each bidder coalition Q in VCS[s,p]; and
receiving a winning bid query for a span X and a bidder coalition P and, in response, initializing an empty WIN array and iteratively adding each last winning bid to the WIN array and navigating to a complementary sub-auction [X-s, P\p] until X is not greater than 0 or P is empty.
The above-recited limitations set forth the fundamental economic principle of facilitating auctions, including determining auction status and establish a commercial interaction between bidders and a seller to complete an auction process. This arrangement amounts to each of a fundamental economic principle or practice, a sales activity or behavior, and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional limitations:
a machine readable storage medium storing instructions; and
a processor to execute the instructions throughout a duration of an auction to
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 23-24 and 27 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, as indicated above, the additional elements merely provide a generic, non-particular operating environment for the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claims 5, 10-11, 36-39
Dependent claims 5, 10-11, 36-39 merely provide embellishments to the abstract idea, and do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s initially asserts that “the invention is not directed to an abstract idea, and even if the invention includes an abstract idea, the invention includes significantly more than the abstract idea” because the amendments to claim 1 “recites a specific computer-implemented bidder support system that maintains and incrementally updates sub-auction state using two stored array structures and uses that maintained state to answer winning level, deadness level, and winning bid queries on demand during the auction's duration”. However, no specifics of the computer implementation in order to facilitate the “on demand” support of queries are recited by the claims. Instead, the claims set forth an algorithmic approaching to tracking and providing the auction status, implemented in mathematical constructs. This algorithmic approach is merely recited as performed by instructions stored on a generic machine readable storage medium and executed by a generic processor. Such an implementation is a clear instance of “apply it” limitations that the Courts have repeatedly considered to be mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, these limitations do not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that:
Amended claim 1 is not directed to a fundamental economic practice. Rather, amended claim 1 is directed to a specific computer implementation of incremental sub-auction state tracking and querying. Amended claim 1 recites "wherein, after a new bid b = <s,v,p,t> is submitted, the processor loops through all sub-auctions [X,P] to make incremental updates." The Specification discloses that the claimed system is not merely facilitating an auction and a series of sub-auctions but rather is a computational infrastructure that keeps track of sub-auction status (e.g., value and winning bids) as the auction progresses and provides bidder support information based on sub-auctions status on demand. (FIGS. 1 and 2).
While applicant purports that the recited claim language sets forth a “specific computer implementation” and a “computational infrastructure”, the Examiner re-emphasizes that the “specific” implementation of the claimed process in a computer is anything but specific, and is merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claims are silent as to the specific manner in which the arrays are created, stored, or queried by the computer, and the disclosure provides no further specifics. Such a generic description of the computerization of the claimed invention does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that:
Amended claim 1 recites the incremental updates are performed by "checking if bid b belongs to sub-auction [X,P], where bid b belongs to sub-auction [X,P] if and only if its span s contains no more units on each item than span X and pEP; checking if sub-auction [X,P] needs updating, where sub-auction [X,P] needs to be updated if and only if v + VAL[X-s, P\p] > VAL[X,P]; and in response to [X,P] needing updating, updating sub-auction [X,P] as follows: VAL[X,P] = v + VAL[X-s, P\p] and LastWinBid[X,P] = b." Accordingly, the incremental update procedure is (i) loops through sub-auctions [X,P], (ii) checks whether the submitted bid belongs to [X,P], (iii) checks whether [X,P] needs updating by evaluating whether the submitted bid combines with winning bids in a complementary sub-auction to strictly outbid current winning bids, and (iv) updates both VAL and LastWinBid when the update condition is met. (Para. [0030]; FIGS. 3B-3C). These features are not sales activity steps. Rather, they are specific computer operations for maintaining and updating stored state across a combinatorial state space (spans and coalitions) as bids arrive.
Contrary to applicant’s assertion, “checking” if a bid belongs to a sub-auction, “checking” if a sub-auction needs updating, and “updating” a sub-auction with a mathematical procedure are not specific computer operations. They are algorithmic steps in a procedure to check and update the status of an auction. The computer operations performed to complete these steps are not specified in the claims, and are not set forth in the Specification.
Applicant further argues:
In addition, amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, i.e., real-time, on-demand bidder support based on maintained sub-auction status. Amended claim 1 and the Specification define bidder support information as including winning level information, deadness level information, and winning/live bids information, provided on demand in real time. (Para. [0018] and [0024]; and Fig. 1). Amended claim 1 implements this by requiring that bidder support information be determined based on the status of each sub-auction, where each sub-auction's status comprises (i) its value and (ii) its last winning bid, both of which maintained in the stored arrays and updated incrementally as the auction progresses.
The Courts have identified several types of limitations found to be indicative that an additional element, or combination of additional elements may have integrated a judicial except into an abstract idea. The purported practical application of “real-time, on-demand bidder support based on maintained sub-auction status” does not fall within any of: an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, “real-time, on-demand bidder support based on maintained sub-auction status” does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
With regard to the amended features of claim 1, applicant argues:
These bidder support features are a practical application of the claimed computational infrastructure. These features require the system to maintain state and to answer specific query types by reading stored sub-auction values and last winning bids and traversing complementary sub-auctions.
Similar to above, applicant has not argued any of the examples of practical application cited by the courts. Further, any claimed “computational infrastructure” is not defined by applicant or the claims. The Examiner therefore can only speculate that applicant is referring to the usage of arrays and mathematical computations set forth in the claims. Mathematical, algorithmic, or computational constructs do not represent any manner of technology or technical field. Accordingly, usage of such a “computational infrastructure” does not represent the practical application of the claimed abstract idea to a particular technology, but rather falls within the abstract idea itself.
Applicant further asserts:
Further, amended claim 1 addresses the problem of computational intractability from combinatorial explosion by reciting a specific state-maintenance approach. The Specification identifies that in multi-item combinatorial auctions the number of possible bundles grows exponentially and finding the winning bids is computationally intractable, and for MIMU auctions winner determination is NP-complete. (Para. [0003]). The Specification further explains that the system tracks values and winning bids of sub-auctions and updates them in a dynamic-programming fashion as the auction progresses, enabling bidder support queries to be answered efficiently, with benchmarking showing substantial speed improvements relative to an integer programming approach. (Para. [0041]). Accordingly, amended claim 1 is not merely organizing human activity. Rather, amended claim 1 recites a specific computer implementation of incremental state maintenance and query answering for an exponentially large state space.
Here, applicant purports that the claimed invention solving the “computational intractability from combinatorial explosion” via the solution of “a specific state-maintenance approach” renders the claimed invention significantly more than an abstract idea amounting to “merely organizing human activity.” However, the stated problem is not a problem emerging in any particular technology or technical field, but rather a mathematical problem that emerges in auctions. The purported solution is similarly a mathematical approach to determining the current status of auctions. A mathematical solution to a mathematical problem emerging in a commercial scheme is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea. Further applicant’s assertion that the claim recites a “specific computer implementation” is erroneous. As stated previously, the only additional elements recited in claim 1 are:
“a machine readable storage medium storing instructions” and “a processor to execute the instructions throughout a duration of an auction to…”. These additional elements are clearly not “specific”. The Specification (see at least [0024]-[0025]) makes clear that the invention can be implemented with any suitable hardware devices, and that the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Additionally, applicant’s arguments more specifically explain the purported problem (“that in multi-item combinatorial auctions the number of possible bundles grows exponentially and finding the winning bids is computationally intractable, and for MIMU auctions winner determination is NP-complete”) make clear that the problem to be addressed is a mathematical problem (i.e., “computationally intractable”, “NP-complete”) that emerges in a specific commercial scheme. As previously noted, NP-complete problems are not exclusive to software arts, but are rather problems that emerge in field of computational complexity theory. Paragraph [0003] makes no mention of software, computers, or any manner of technology at all. The problems to be solved by the invention are set forth entirely in the context of buyer knowledge of auction status in complex auctions. Even if NP-complete problems were considered to be a specific problem in the software arts, the claimed invention does not provided a technical solution to NP-complete problem solving by computers, it provides an algorithmic solution to a particular commercial problem that happens to be an NP-complete problem in computational complexity theory. That the claimed mathematical approach is more efficient than an exemplary previous approach is only indicative of a more efficient algorithmic approach, not of an improved technology. The nature of the technology claimed to implement the invention is not changed, let alone improved.
Applicant further asserts:
The Examiner submits that the arrays are merely utilized as mathematical tools and that the claims/specification are silent as to how the array structures are implemented in memory. (Final Office Action, pages 11-12 and 13-15). The arrays, however, are stored state used for repeated read/write during incremental updates and query traversal. The Specification describes that two arrays are created and stored, with VAL[X,P] storing the up-to-date value of sub-auction [X,P] and LastWinBid[X,P] storing the latest winning bid of sub-auction [X,P]. (Para. [0029]; and FIG. 3B). The incremental update procedure expressly writes updated values back into VAL and LastWinBid. (Para. [0030]; and FIG. 3C). The winning bid recovery procedure expressly reads LastWinBid entries and navigates to complementary sub-auctions. (Para. [0034]; and FIG. 3G). Thus, the arrays are not abstract mathematical tools, rather they are the stored sub-auction status (value and last winning bid) that the system maintains and uses to answer bidder queries on demand.
Even if claim 1 is considered to include an abstract idea, the ordered combination recited in amended claim 1 provides significantly more since amended claim 1 recites a specific, non-generic implementation: (i) defining sub-auctions by span and coalition; (ii) maintaining sub-auction status in two stored arrays (VAL and LastWinBid); (iii) incrementally updating those arrays using a defined complementary sub-auction inequality test that enforces allocative fairness by strictly outbidding current winning bids; and (iv) answering winning level, deadness level (via VCS), and winning bid queries by reading maintained state and traversing complementary sub-auctions.
The Specification discloses that this approach enables bidder support information to be queried very efficiently, with benchmarking showing large speed differences relative to an integer programming approach. The characterization of claim 1 as merely facilitating an auction fails to account for the specific computer implementation of incremental sub-auction status maintenance (VAL/LastWinBid) and query answering based on complementary sub-auctions and viable coalition sets. Thus, amended claim 1 is not merely using a generic computer as an obvious mechanism, but recites a specific architecture for maintaining and updating sub-auction status in a manner that enables real-time bidder support queries during the auction's duration.
In response, the Examiner re-emphasizes that, as previously noted, the claimed array structures, unlike the referential table in Enfish, are not specifically linked to any functioning of computer memory, or to the storage and later retrieval of information from that memory. The present claims and specification are entirely silent as to how the array structures are implemented in memory. Instead, they are described (and claimed) only in the context of their algorithmic operation within instructions to support an auction, and that they are broadly stored on a machine-readable medium. While applicant asserts that the arrays “stored state used for repeated read/write during incremental updates and query traversal”, the claims do not recite any read/write operations, nor do they recite the manner in which the claimed technological environment traverses, or processes in any way, queries. The claims do not specifiy how the system answers “bidder queries on demand”. Merriam-webster.com defines an array as “a (1): a number of mathematical elements arranged in rows and columns, (2): a data structure in which similar elements of data are arranged in a table”. That the claimed arrays store data is not evidence that the arrays are meaningfully implemented in a particular technological environment, but rather that they are used for their inherent purpose.
As previously noted, the arrays are merely utilized as mathematical tools to perform the abstract determinations of bidder support information during an auction (such as winning and deadness levels). Here, the claimed method does not alter or in any way improve the manner in which the claimed processor operates – it only improves the manner in which abstract determinations of bidder support information are performed. The present disclosure and claims do not seek to implement a solution to a problem in the software arts. Paragraph [0003] - [0004] set forth the problem to be solved by the invention as entirely commercial in nature. They make no mention of software, computers, or any manner of technology at all. The problems to be solved by the invention are set forth entirely in the context of computational problems of determining buyer knowledge of auction status in complex auctions.
Additionally, the repeated assertions that the present approach has been benchmarked to be more efficiently performed versus an integer programming approach are not persuasive in indicating that the present invention shows an improvement to some technology or technical field. The benchmarking merely shows that the present algorithmic approach for determining bidder support information is faster than a different algorithm. A more efficient computational algorithm does not improve, or in any way alter the manner in which any technology operates. Further, the process of determining bidder support information, such as winning and deadness levels, is performable by a human (e.g., by an auctioneer). The Federal Circuit has stressed that "[m]erely using a computer to perform more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually does not confer patent-eligibility." See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 331, 336 (D. Del. 2013) (citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), aff'd, 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims are held to be ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Decision support for multi-unit combinatorial bundle auctions (PTO-892 Reference U) discloses a framework for providing bidder support in combinatorial auctions, including advising bidders on winning bid levels in multi-unit auctions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights