Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 14, and 19 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
1. The Office has impermissibly read the specification into the claims to conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea. The claims do not recite a bidder so the abstract idea of qualifying a bidder is unfounded.
The Office disagrees. The specification at 0002-0007 support the examiner’s interpretation of the claims. Additionally, the claims refer to a “network event”, the phrase “network event” does not appear in the specification, however, the term “event” appears in the specification 204 times. Each term “event” is immediately preceded by the word “auction” or at least associated with an auction. As auctions inherently have bidders the “participants” are interpreted as bidders. The claims also recite “providing one or more entities with…access to…the network event (auction), and “receiving from…the one or more entities, a plurality of messages to participate in the network event”. The claims also recite that the messages comprise “request values”. The phrase “request values” does not appear in the specification but the term “request” does appear 45 times. Para. 0107 discloses that the “request” is a bid. Based on the above interpretation, the above argument is unpersuasive.
2. Applicant asserts the MPEP limits activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings for certain methods of performing human activity. The first sub-grouping of fundamental economic principles and practices include, performance of a financial transaction, pricing a product for sale, hedging, processing of payments, using a marking…to communicate information about the object, etc..
The Office disagrees. The MPEP states: “The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks.” The MPEP then gives examples of these activities and practices but does not limit fundamental economic practices and principles to these examples. Any notion that these examples comprise limitations is merely an interpretation of the part of the applicant. This argument is therefore unpersuasive.
3. The claims recite elements which incorporate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application. By employing the claimed subject matter, a computing system is better able to control a single network event, which would be impossible to be performed by a human and is not a commercial interaction.
The Office disagrees. It is unclear what “better able to control” means. It is clear that the claims are directed to an auction. Auctions are undoubtedly old and well known and to assert that they cannot be performed by humans is unpersuasive. The applicant fails to provide additional arguments regarding what particular aspects of the claims cannot be performed by humans without the aid of computers.
4. Applicant generally asserts that the claim limitations meaningfully limit the claims and overcome the abstract idea.
The Office disagrees. The claims reflect generically stated limitations such as the converting of message data into different formats, but fails to claim any particular format and asserts that this is meaningful activity because the claims recite using a computer for the conversion. Converting data from one form to another, in general, does not require a computer, therefore this, and similar arguments, are unpersuasive.
The drawing objections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
storing, on a computer system, a plurality of hurdle criteria, received from a first entity and defining participation in a network event managed by one or more remote server devices, a first hurdle criteria of the plurality of hurdle criteria being specific to the first entity and a second hurdle criteria of the plurality of hurdle criteria being specific to a basket;
providing one or more entities with remote access, via respective computing devices communicatively coupled to the one or more server devices via a network, to a plurality of baskets associated with the network event, wherein each basket includes one or more items satisfying a parameter of the basket, and wherein each basket has a value that is determined based on the one or more items associated with the basket and that is in a unified format;
receiving, from the respective computing devices of the one or more entities, a plurality of messages to participate in the network event and having a plurality of request values in respective formats;
determining a plurality of characteristics of the plurality of request values of the plurality of messages, wherein the plurality of characteristics are converted in format to conform to the unified format;
comparing a characteristic of a request value of a first message of the plurality of messages to at least one of the first hurdle criteria or the second hurdle criteria, wherein the comparison comprises performing at least one statistical operation using the characteristic formatted in the unified format;
determining, based on the comparison indicating that the characteristic exceeds at least one of the first hurdle criteria or the second hurdle criteria, that the first message of the plurality of messages is initially eligible to be considered in the network event;
programmatically generating a communication item including an indication of the initial eligibility of the first message in response to determining that the first message is initially eligible based on the comparison; and
transmitting the communication item over the network to the first entity defining the participation in the network event to cause a client device associated with the first entity to present the initial eligibility comprising an indication of the comparison, wherein transmitting the communication item to the first entity occurs without identifying, to the first entity, an identity of an entity that submit the first message having the characteristic exceeding at least one of the first hurdle criteria or the second hurdle criteria.
The underlined elements of the claim reflect certain methods of organizing human activity namely, a commercial activity and sales process, as the claims are directed to qualifying a bidder in an auction (according to the specification).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are drafted to incorporate the abstract idea into a computer environment by adding the words “Apply it”, or the like. The additional elements being: a computer system, remote servers, computing devices, a network, and programmatically. Programmatically meaning using a computer program. The claims also comprise insignificant extrasolution activity of generating a communication item…transmitting the communication item to the first entity …without identifying the sender to the first entity.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely comprise the abstract idea and the words “Apply it” and the insignificant extrasolution activity is well-understood, routine and conventional per Symantec (transmitting information over the interent) and the prior art of Yaegerman (0007) “Many techniques are known in the art for providing anonymity for internet users.”
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea or comprise additional elements adding the words “apply it”, or the like, such as an event database, to the abstract idea. As a whole, and in combination, the claims merely comprise an abstract idea and the words “apply it” and are thus patent-ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights