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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-7, and 9-17 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
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 1-7, and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-7, and 9-17 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards conducting a reverse auction/bidding transaction comprising plural bidding pools having predetermined closing times, and providing a system for doing same. Reverse auctions are long-standing commercial practices previously performed by humans (e.g., auction houses, auction platforms, sales platforms, auctioneers, bidders, buyers, sellers, etc.) manually and via generic computing. Auctioneers/houses/etc. have long determined which pools to place bids within, whether a bid is valid, whether closing time has expired, whether to close a bidding pool, etc. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation. Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—host and remote computers, databases, auction management device, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done, albeit less efficiently or slower. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-7, and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0153449 to Hite, in view of US 2006/0265313 to Fung et al.
With respect to Claim 1, Hite teaches a system (FIG. 2) for management of online auction, which transmits and processes auction information in a computer network capable of communicating between a host computer (206) and a plurality of remote client computers (FIG. 2); the system comprising: a host computer having data processing and communication capabilities (FIGS. 2, 12), connected to the computer network, and configured to transmit data to and receive data from the remote client computers via the computer network (FIG. 2); a product database (208) in communication with the host computer (FIG. 2), configured to store product information, wherein the product information describes identifications of product/service available for bidding transaction ([0026]), and an index to a plurality of qualified sellers corresponding to each product/service ([0006], each seller listing its items would form an index; [0056]; claim 12 therein); a seller database in communication with the host computer (FIG. 2; [0056]), configured to store seller information relating to a plurality of qualified sellers ([0056]); wherein the seller information further comprises descriptions relating to payment instruments usable by a corresponding seller ([0042];FIG. 1; claims 1 and 12 therein) and products/services relating to a corresponding seller ([0056]); a buyer database in communication with the host computer ([0025];FIG. 2), configured to store buyer information of a plurality of qualified buyers ([0025];[0056]), wherein the buyer information further comprises descriptions relating to a credit limit of a corresponding buyer and payment instruments usable by a corresponding buyer ([0027]); an auction database in communication with the host computer, configured to store buying demand information and bidding offer information (FIG. 2), wherein the buying demand information describes buying demands of products/services received from one of the remote client computers, and comprises product information, demanding quantity (abstract;[0030]; [0032]) and expected closing time of a corresponding product/service ([0030]); and wherein the bidding offer information describes bidding offers of products/services received from one of the remote client computers (FIG. 2), and comprises product information, offering price and expected closing time of a corresponding product/service ([0030-33]); and an auction management device, implemented in the server computer and in communication with the product database, the seller database, the buyer database and the auction database (FIG. 2), configured to receive and to process buying demand information and bidding offer information of products/services received by the auction database (FIGS. 1-3), and to determine whether a contract consisted of a buying demand and a bidding offer is concluded (FIG. 1); wherein the auction management device is configured to manage multiple bidding pools ([0033];[0056]) for product/service, wherein one or more buying demand for a same product/service with the same expected closing time forms a bidding pool ([0030-34];[0074). Hite teaches a system configured to perform the recited steps of the instant invention, but it doesn’t use the same claim terminology used herein. It would be obvious to teach successive pools wherein bidding ends in the first pool at a predetermined time relative to the closing time of another pool, because “a closing time” is taught by any time. Hite’s system teaches conducting a payment transaction, which would include obtaining payment instrument data. Moreover, Hite fails to expressly teach a credit limit, but teaches consideration of “credit information.” It would be obvious to try “credit limit” here, since it is a part of a finite set of choices for buyer’s credit information. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify to modify Hite’s process to include the specific terminology such as “credit limit.”
Hite fails to teach, but Fung teaches wherein the auction management device is configured to allow a buyer having placed a buying demand in one of selected bidding pools to withdraw the buying demand from the participating bidding pool within a first predetermined time before a closing time of another bidding pool (FIG. 1; [0023-24]). Hite teaches a predetermined closing time ([0030]) but fails to teach the instant limitations. Fung teaches wherein the auction management device is configured to place a buying demand of a buyer in a predetermined bidding pool, when the buyer withdraws a buying demand from a participating bidding pool. [0023-24] Fung discusses the need for greater control. [0005-08]. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Hite to include these limits on bidding demand timing, in order to give the platform greater control.
With respect to Claim 2, Hite teaches wherein the auction management device provides an auction webpage for one of the remote client computers to access through the computer network; wherein the auction webpage displays at least descriptive information of at least one bidding pool which closing time is not reached. ([0024];[0030];[0048])
With respect to Claim 3, Hite teaches wherein the auction management device is configured to set a closing time for a product/service in the product database ([0030]), and to cause a buying demand of product/service to include only one expected closing time, and to include all buying demands for a same product/service with a same expected closing time into one bidding pool ([0033]).
With respect to Claim 4, Hite teaches wherein a time gap between closing times of two bidding pools of a same product/service is an integral multiple of a standard time gap ([0030];[0033], a time gap between the predetermined closing times of successive pools will always be an integral multiple of a standard gap, when the term standard is undefined).
With respect to Claim 6, Hite teaches a predetermined closing time ([0030]) but fails to teach the instant limitations. Fung teaches wherein the auction management device is configured to allow a buying demand in one of selected bidding pools to withdraw from the participating bidding pool within the first predetermined time before the closing time of the other bidding pool, if the time difference of the closing times of the selected bidding pools and the other bidding pool is less than a second predetermined time. [0023-24] Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hite to include this limitation taught by Fung.
With respect to Claim 7, Hite teaches a predetermined closing time ([0030]) but fails to teach the instant limitations. Fung teaches wherein the auction management device is configured to allow a buying demand in one of a predetermined number of bidding pools, which closing time is after a closing time of another bidding pool, to withdraw from the participating bidding pool, if a corresponding buying demand by the same buyer is placed in the other bidding pool. [0023-24] Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hite to include this limitation taught by Fung.
With respect to Claim 9, Hite teaches wherein the predetermined bidding pool is a bidding pool with an earliest available closing time or a bidding pool selected by the buyer. [0030]
With respect to Claim 10, Hite teaches wherein the auction management device is configured to withdraw a lowest bidding offer of a bidding pool, when a quantity of the buying demands of the bidding pool is less than a quantity of buying demands at the time the lowest bidding offer is placed, and replace the lowest bidding offer with a second lowest available bidding offer. ([0011];[0034], second lowest seller bid)
With respect to Claim 11, Hite teaches wherein the bidding managing tool is further configured to, before withdrawing the lowest bidding offer, obtain a determination of whether to withdraw from the seller with the lowest bidding offer, and to stop withdrawing the lowest bidding offer, if the determination is not to. [0030-33]
With respect to Claim 12, Hite teaches wherein the auction management device is further configured to, when accepting a bidding offer, obtain a minimum quantity requirement to the bidding offer and to withdraw the bidding offer, when the buying quantity of the corresponding buying demands is less than the minimum quantity, or, in addition, to replace the bidding offer with a second lowest available bidding offer. [0034];[0074]
With respect to Claim 13, Hite teaches wherein the auction management device is further configured to close a bidding pool at the closing time of the bidding pool and use the lowest bidding offer at the closing time as a concluded price of the bidding pool. [0034]
With respect to Claim 14, Hite teaches wherein the auction management device is configured to: when receiving a buying demand for a product/service (FIGS. 1,2), determine whether a bidding pool for the same product/service with a closing time identical to an expected closing time of the buying demand is included in the auction database ([0064]); if yes, include the buying demand to the bidding pool and update a bidding offer information of the bidding pool ([0031]); otherwise, determine whether a bidding pool for the same product/service with a closing time different from the expected closing time of the buying demand by a time shorter than the standard time gap is included in the auction database (FIGS. 1,2, Hite is configured to do this when there are two adjacent pools); if yes, include the buying demand to the bidding pool and update a bidding offer information of the bidding pool ([0031]); otherwise, establish a new bidding pool in the auction database and include the buying demand to the newly established bidding pool ([0033]), followed by setting a closing time of the newly established bidding pool as a time different from a closing time of an immediately preceding bidding pool by an integral multiple of the standard time gap ([0030]).
With respect to Claim 15, Hite teaches further comprising a demand and bid validator and an notification manager; wherein, the demand and bid validator can be implemented in the host computer for verifying information from the client computer to determine whether a buying demand and/or a bidding offer is valid; and wherein the notification manager is in communication with the host computer, the auction management device and the auction database, for providing electronic notification to the remote client computer via the host computer. [0043];[0056]
With respect to Claim 16, Hite teaches a fee collecting device, configured to notify buyers and corresponding winning sellers of the winning price and quantity after a bidding pool is closed, so as to complete the transaction. [0007];[0034]
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatenable over Hite, in view of Fung, and further in view of US 2007/0043651 to Xiao et al.
With respect to Claim 5, Hite fails to teach, but Xiao teaches wherein in the product database, the product information of the products/services available for bidding transactions comprises a product classification code, whereby a plurality of products/services corresponding to a same classification code is classified as a same product or alternative products. (Abstract;[0008], group ID teaches the use of a code) Xiao teaches the desire to make trading more versatile and flexible ([0008]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hite to include combining like products into groups, in order to make the platform more versatile and flexible.
With respect to Claim 17, Hite fails to expressly teach, but Xiao teaches wherein said bidding condition is unit price of a related product/service; the most-favorable bidding condition is a lowest bidding price. [0118] Under the same rationale as Claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hite to include this limitation taught by Xiao.
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 8/8/2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where rejections/objections are maintained. The amendment to the drawings overcome the outstanding objections thereto. The amendment to the claims overcome the outstanding objections thereto. The amendment to the claims overcome the outstanding § 112 rejections. As per § 101, the amendment merely raises the scope of original Claim 8 into the independent claim. The claims continue to recite a preferred method of conducting a reverse auction involving plural bidding pools for services and goods, and involving the specified steps for closing/timing. This is economic and commercial activity. An updated search shows that reverse auctions involving bidding pools are well-known, routine, and conventional (see, e.g., the prior art references of record added by an updated search). Again, merely automating the abstract idea that humans have long performed (i.e., apply it across generic computing technology) is insufficient to overcome patent ineligibility. As per the prior art rejections, the Claims do not add limitations not previously considered. Applicant’s remarks regarding Hite and Fung are not persuasive, said references being to the BRI of the claims, interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the state of the art at the time of filing. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI).
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 J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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 J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696