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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
The Office has impermissibly read the specification into the claims by interpreting “network event” as “auction” and “request values” as bids – words that do not appear anywhere in the claims.
In response, the Office asserts that per MPEP 2106 (II), “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions.” Thus, it is entirely permissible for the Office to interpret the claim language in light of the specification, especially since the applicant offers no alternative definitions of the terms at issue. As a second matter, the applicant also uses the examiner’s interpretation of the claims by referencing “bids” or “bidders” within these arguments.
The claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
The Office asserts that the applicant has not offered any evidence or reasoning to support this argument beyond the bare assertion. The applicant appears to argue that receiving data in respective formats from multiple distributed computing devices cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Here the analysis hinges on whether or not the recited actions (verbs like receiving, performing, etc.) can be performed without the claimed additional elements. In this case the question is, can the human mind receive heterogenous data ion respective formats, convert that data into a unified format, perform statistical operations on that converted data and generate and transmit eligibility communications while preserving anonymity. In the present case, there is no evidence that any of the above actions require the use of a computer and therefore the additional elements merely add the words “apply it” to the recited actions.
The Office dismisses the format conversion, statistical operations, programmatic generation, and anonymous transmission features without any analysis of how these elements function together as an ordered combination. The Desjardin memo instructs that examiners must evaluate claims as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps and must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. The memo further instructs, when examining the claims as a whole, examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere generic computer components without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem.
The Office asserts that these components were address specifically in the office action on pages 6-7. It is unclear to the Office by what basis the applicant asserts that these components were not properly addressed. The Desjardins decision analyzed eligibility in terms of whether the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. To that end, the applicant has not indicated or shown where the specification discloses an improvement and how the claims reflect that improvement. Regarding the format conversion and the statistical operations these elements were not dismissed but were identified as part of the abstract idea therefore the argument as it pertains to these elements is moot. Regarding the generating and transmitting steps, these elements could also have been included in the abstract idea since the eligibility determination can reasonably include notifying participants of that eligibility. As insignificant extra-solution activity they are identified as limitations which are not central to the main thrust of the claims. The main thrust of the claims here is identified as eligibility determination and therefore the generating and transmitting is not central to the steps of eligibility determination. Regarding anonymous transmission the specification does not indicate that limitations providing for anonymity of participants creates any technical improvement. The specification at 0102 and other sections simply disclose methods of protecting bidder anonymity with no indication that this function provides a technical improvement.
The Office’s failure to properly distinguish the prong 2 and step 2B analytical frameworks, and the failure to consider the ordered combination at step 2B, are procedural errors that independently warrant withdrawal of the rejection.
The Office asserts that the applicant has not specifically pointed out where the Office has erred beyond a bare assertion. The argument is therefore moot. When determining that an element is insignificant extra-solution activity at step 2A the Office must then determine if the activity is well-understood, routine and conventional, supported by evidence from case law and prior art. In the present case both case law and prior art have been provided to show that the activity is indeed well-understood, routine and conventional.
The claims are similar to those of Example 42, claim 1, allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format…
The Office asserts that the present claims do not recite allowing users to share information in real time in a standardized format in the vein of example 42, claim 1 and therefore this argument is moot.
The specification confirms a technological solution to a technological problem at 0222.
The Office asserts that while the specification describes a particular embodiment it makes no mention of a technological solution to a technological problem corresponding to this embodiment and therefore this argument is moot.
The claimed format conversion cannot be performed without a computer, particularly for the scale and speed required for real-time eligibility determination.
The Office asserts that the applicant has not explained why format conversion cannot be performed without a computer. In regard to the scale and speed, it is well-established that the use of a computer to increase efficiency cannot confer patent-eligibility (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Claim 10 recites automatically adjusting at least one hurdle criteria to maximize a request value…thus claim 10 recites a dynamic automated optimization process…the system automatically adjusts its own operating parameters.
The Office asserts that this is a user instructed task, merely implemented by a computer, as evidenced by the applicant’s indication of para. 0144 of the specification where the seller requests that event instrument panel 704 automatically alter hurdle rates. As such this limitation is a mere narrowing of the abstract idea implemented by computer (apply it).
Evidence of well-understood, routine and conventional activity is a factual determination which is not supported by the Office’s citation of Symantec and Yaegerman.
The Office asserts that the applicant provides a mere assertion that the citations are inadequate but provides no further explanation or reasoning to support this assertion and the argument is therefore moot.
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. (Previously Presented) 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 independent claim and subsequent dependent claims 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 computer activity reflected by the words automatically 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.
2. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, further comprising storing the communication item in an event database of the one or more remote server device, and wherein transmitting the communication item to the first entity comprises:
accessing the communication item from the event database; and
converting the communication item from a first communication protocol to a second communication protocol, wherein the communication item is transmitted in the second communication protocol.
Claim 2 merely narrows the insignificant extra-solution transmission activity with message conversion protocols. Message conversion protocols are well known per the prior art of Dant disclosing; [0077] The format translator 231 is an application configured to format an outgoing electronic communication into a format compatible with the receiving database system. That is, the translator 231 is configured to utilize the dictionary 229 to re-format the outgoing communication into the format known to be compatible with the receiving system. The translator 231 can be any known application for converting the format of an electronic communication to an appropriate format for the receiving system.
3. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein at least one request value of the plurality of request values comprises at least one of a cash value, an annual percentage rate, a period of time, or a value specified in relation to a calculated value of the basket.
Claim 3 merely narrows the abstract idea by defining the request value.
4. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the specified parameter comprises at least one of a maturity, a geographic location, a type, a property, an age of an item of the one or more items, or a maturity date of the item.
Claim 4 merely narrows the abstract idea by defining the parameter.
5. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the characteristic of the request value of the first message is greater than a characteristic of a request value of a second message of the plurality of messages, wherein the characteristic of the request value of the first message is determined to be greater than the characteristic of the request value of the second message based on a comparison of the characteristic of the request value of the first message and the characteristic of the request value of the second message in the unified format.
Claim 5 merely narrows the abstract idea by defining the characteristic and determining the request value.
6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, further comprising: indicating the initial eligibility utilizing a color indicator, wherein the communication item is communicated to the first entity with the color indicator.
Claim 6 merely narrows the insignificant extra-solution activity.
7. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the network event is associated with a goal, wherein the initial eligibility is determined based on the characteristic of a request value of the first message accomplishing the goal.
Claim 7 merely narrows the abstract idea by defining the network event.
8. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more items comprise at least one of an outstanding payable, an outstanding receivable, rent due, wages due, lease payments, interest payments, pension obligations, debt payments, or a package of commercial loans.
Claim 8 merely narrows the abstract idea by defining the one or more items.
9. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving approval of the request value of the first message; and
based on the approval, generating an indication of the approval of the request value of the first message without revealing information about a second entity to the one or more entities.
Claim 9 merely narrows the abstract idea and particularly the request value determination process. The claim also further narrows the insignificant extra-solution activity.
10. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising automatically adjusting at least one hurdle criteria to maximize a request value of the plurality of request values for at least a specified amount of items.
Claim 10 merely narrows the abstract idea by adjusting system parameters.
11. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising providing an invitation to the respective computing devices to participate in the network event, wherein the plurality of messages are received subsequent to an acceptance to participate in the network event.
Claim 11 merely narrows the abstract idea of determining eligibility.
12. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a total request value of eligible messages substantially equals a goal indicating an amount of debt to be extinguished; and
electronically notifying a computing device of the first entity that the total request value substantially equals the goal indicating the amount of debt to be extinguished.
Claim 12 merely narrows the abstract idea of determining eligibility.
13. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a total discount amount associated with one or more eligible requests substantially equals a goal indicating a total amount of discount to be gathered; and
electronically notifying a computing device of the first entity the total discount amount substantially equals the goal indicating the total amount of discount to be gathered.
Claim 13 merely narrows the abstract idea of determining eligibility.
Claims 14-20 are similarly rejected.
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 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 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