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 .
Claims 1-15 have been examined; claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite a computer system and parallel method for managing an auction, which is an abstract idea in the field of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited method is not fundamentally technological, but only an auctioning procedure. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as set forth in detail below.
The following 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis is performed in accordance with section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (concerning Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Independent claim 1 recites a computing system comprising a processor system and a hardware storage device, and therefore falls within the statutory category of machine, as do its dependents; independent claim 12 recites a method comprising a series of steps, and therefore falls within the statutory category of process, as do its dependents (Mayo test, Step 1). (Step 1: YES)
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, and specifically to commercial interactions under the field of organizing human activity without significantly more (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 1). (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES)
The claims recite a computing system and method for managing an auction for contested resources. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor is linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 2). Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The claims do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The claims do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by the use of, a particular machine. The claims do not recite effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to different state or thing. The claims do not recite applying or using a 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 (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 2). (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO)
There are no additional elements recited in the claims to raise them to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field (Mayo test, Step 2B). The detailed computing system and method recited are non-obvious over the prior art, but non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is a different issue from eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The specific steps of the claims, such as identifying a contested resource, identifying a plurality of bidding entities comprising: full bidding entities that are registered to individually bid on the contested resource, fractional entities that are registered to bid on the contested resource for a fractional ownership of the contested resource as part of a fractional biding group that collectively has full ownership of the contested resource, initiating a current bidding round corresponding to a current asking price for the contested resource, etc., do not qualify, alone or in combination, to raise the claimed method and system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Independent claim 12 recites a method that could largely be performed by a human auctioneer, although claim 12, as amended, recites a computing system that receives fractional bids and performs other operations. Antin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0051226) discloses (paragraph 120, emphasis added), “Examples of well-known computing systems, may include, but are not limited to, personal computers, hand-held or laptop devices, tablets, microprocessor-based systems, multiprocessor systems, cellular telephones, PDAs, and the like.” Hence, only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology would be required for the computing system recited in claim 12.
Carter (U.S. Patent 5,787,175) discloses (column 18, lines 1-2, emphasis added), “Suitable methods for generating timestamps are well-known in the art.” Further, Snyder (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0051226) discloses (paragraph 39, emphasis added), “As would be understood by those in the art, the message can include the sender electronic address and the recipient electronic address as well as additional aspects including information such as a message subject, a message body, a timestamp, metadata, and the like, as found, for instance, in a conventional email message.” Hence, assigning, to each individual fractional bid, a corresponding timestamp would require only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology even if, arguably, assigning timestamps qualifies as technological. (Step 2B: NO)
Dependent claims 13, 14, and 15, each of which depends from claim 12, recite non-technological conditions, or operations which could be performed by a human auctioneer. The limitations of claims 12, 13, 14, and 15, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Independent claim 1 recites a computing system comprising: a processor system; and a hardware storage device storing computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor system to cause the computing system to perform operations corresponding to the steps of method claim 12. These operations therefore, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein. The computer-readable instructions can be stored on non-transitory computer-readable storage media of a conventional type, whether devices and/or materials.” Hence, the processor system and the hardware storage device storing computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor system to cause the computing system to perform operations require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Claim 1 as amended recites various operations which the computing system is caused to perform; these have been considered, and are limitations pertaining to the commercial interactions of conducting an auction; they are not significantly technological, with the arguable exception (which Examiner does not concede) of assigning timestamps. Carter (U.S. Patent 5,787,175) discloses (column 18, lines 1-2, emphasis added), “Suitable methods for generating timestamps are well-known in the art.” Further, Snyder (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0051226) discloses (paragraph 39, emphasis added), “As would be understood by those in the art, the message can include the sender electronic address and the recipient electronic address as well as additional aspects including information such as a message subject, a message body, a timestamp, metadata, and the like, as found, for instance, in a conventional email message.” Hence, assigning, to each individual fractional bid, a corresponding timestamp would require only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology even if, arguably, assigning timestamps qualifies as technological.
The limitations of claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites that the computer-readable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to: generate and cause to be displayed a user interface on a computing screen associated with the computer system, the user interface displaying textual and graphical information representing (i) the contested resource, (ii) the current bidding round, (iii) the current asking price, (iv) the fractional bidding group, and (v) the total fractional bidding amount relative to the current asking price. Sivadas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0011477) discloses (paragraph 2, emphasis added), “It is well known to provide portable communication devices, such as mobile telephones, with a user interface that causes graphics and text to be displayed on a display and that allows a user to provide inputs to the device, for the purpose of controlling the device and interacting with software applications.” Hence, such a user interface on a computing screen requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 2, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites that the computer-readable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to perform identifying and updating operations which are not inherently technological, and could be performed by a human auctioneer. Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, recites that the computer-readable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to: in response to dynamically updating the fractional bidding group and the total fractional bidding amount, dynamically update a user interface displayed on a computing screen associated with the computer system by updating [textual and graphical information] with the updated fractional bidding group and the updated total fractional bidding amount relative to the current asking price associated with the current bidding round. Sivadas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0011477) discloses (paragraph 2, emphasis added), “It is well known to provide portable communication devices, such as mobile telephones, with a user interface that causes graphics and text to be displayed on a display and that allows a user to provide inputs to the device, for the purpose of controlling the device and interacting with software applications.” Yet further, Kelly et al. (U.S. Patent 8,052,518) disclose (column 16, lines 58-60, emphasis added), “Images can be displayed and updated on display screen 56 by game processor 12 or other controllers by methods well known to those skilled in the art.” Hence, having such a user interface on a computing screen requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, and updating information likewise requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claims 3 and 4, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites that the computer-readable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to: after initiating the new bidding round, define a new fractional bidding group based on a plurality of fractional bidding entities and corresponding fractional bid amounts submitted in the new bidding round. This is not in itself technological, and could be done by a human auctioneer. Claim 6, which depends from claim 5, recites that the computer-readable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to: in response to defining a new fractional bidding group, dynamically update a user interface displayed on a computer screen associated with the computer system by updating [textual and graphical information] with the new fractional bidding group and total fractional bidding amount corresponding to the new fractional bidding group. Sivadas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0011477) discloses (paragraph 2, emphasis added), “It is well known to provide portable communication devices, such as mobile telephones, with a user interface that causes graphics and text to be displayed on a display and that allows a user to provide inputs to the device, for the purpose of controlling the device and interacting with software applications.” Yet further, Kelly et al. (U.S. Patent 8,052,518) disclose (column 16, lines 58-60, emphasis added), “Images can be displayed and updated on display screen 56 by game processor 12 or other controllers by methods well known to those skilled in the art.” Hence, having such a user interface on a computing screen requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, and updating information likewise requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claims 5 and 6, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 5, recites that the new fractional bidding group is defined such that the plurality of fractional bidding entities in the new bidding round (i) comprises a new fractional bidding entity not included in the fractional bidding group from the current bidding round and (ii) excludes a previously included in the fractional bidding group from the current bidding round. This condition is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitations of claims 5 and 7, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 8, which depends from claim 5, recites that the new fractional bidding group associated with the new bidding round is defined such that the plurality of fractional bidding entities comprises one or more new fractional bidding entities in addition to the fractional bidding entities included in the fractional bidding group associated with the current bidding round. This condition is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitations of claims 5 and 8, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 5, recites that the new asking price for the contested resource in the new bidding round at least meets the full bidding amount from the current bidding round. This condition is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitations of claims 5 and 10, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, recites that the new asking price for the contested resource in the new bidding round at least meets the total fractional bidding amount from the current bidding round. This condition is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitation of claim 9, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 11, which depends from claim 1, recites that the computer-readable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to: after initiating the new bidding round, identify at least one initial fractional bidding group comprising one or more fractional bidding entities associated with one or more pre-bid amounts and at least one initial full bidding entity associated with an absentee bid. Identifying at least one such initial fractional bidding group is not in itself technological, and could be performed by a human auctioneer. Hence, the limitation of claim 11, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the recited invention to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and claims 4, 6, 8, and 11 are also objected to for informalities, but claims 1-11 recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but claims 12-15 recite non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Vadlamani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0357679) discloses an auction platform involving collective bids, so that each participant in a collective bid can be considered as submitting a fractional bid. See Abstract; also Vadlamani discloses (paragraph 20, emphasis added), “The collective bids of multiple subscribers whose fractional shares sum to the entire set of the high value digital message content is then compared against other subscribers who have similarly formed collective bids by different sized shares.” Vadlamani then discloses (paragraph 21, emphasis added), “Similarly, many more subscribers may place bids within a share-rank of their own choosing, with proportional bids corresponding to their fractional share of the high value digital message content. The collective winners of each share-rank then get compared against each other at auction to determine which subscriber(s) win the auction. In this way, the auction platform of the present disclosure may be seen as conducting multiple stages of auction for a single ‘item’ at auction, i.e., determining which subscribers will win the bid at each share-rank, and determining which share-rank will win the overall auction of the entire set of high value digital content (and therefore which subscriber(s) will win the overall auction).” However, Vadlamani does not disclose the specific method of claim 12 or the corresponding computing system of claim 1, and the other prior art references of record do not supply the deficiencies of Vadlamani. In particular, Louie (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0297438), Daniel (U.S. Patent 8,605,579), and Silk et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0042457) do not.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the technical problems outlined in paragraphs [0010] and [0011] of the instant specification make the claimed computing system and corresponding method using a computing system a technical solution to a technical problem. Examiner replies that there is little relation between the quoted paragraphs of the instant specification and the claims, which recite a technically generic computing system programmed to perform particular operations pertaining to conducting an auction involving fractional bids.
The present claims are not, to the best of Examiner’s knowledge, an exact match to the claims in any precedential decision, but they are analogous to the claims in several court precedents. Specifically, they are analogous to the representative claim in the Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC decision, in which a method claim included, inter alia, “a third step of providing the media product for sale at an Internet website”, and therefore could not be carried out without the use of computer and telecommunication technology. The Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit found the claims patent-ineligible, and wrote “The claims’ invocation of the Internet also adds no inventive concept. As we have held, the use of the Internet is not sufficient to save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under § 101.” Examiner therefore maintains that the use of a computing system, in the absence of any specific and recited technical features analogous to those at issue in the Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation decision, is also not sufficient to save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under § 101.
There is also the decision in FairWarning IP, LLC, v. Iatric Systems, Inc., where claims directed to a method of detecting improper access of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) in a computer environment, and to a corresponding system, were found patent-ineligible, despite the recitation of computer technology, and of a computer environment such that the method could not be performed, and the system could not operate, without the use of computers.
Examiner also holds, contrary to Applicant’s argument (pages 15 and 16 of the Amendment and Remarks), that the claims are directed to an abstract idea in the field of commercial interactions. Further, Examiner maintains, again in disagreement with Applicant’s argument, that the claims do not include a practical application, in the sense of a technical solution to a technical problem. The method and system might be useful in a sense when conducting an auction involving fractional bidding entities, but the claims at issue in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank were presumably useful for exchanging obligations as between entities, but the Supreme Court nonetheless found them ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Similarly, the representative claim in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC would be useful to advertisers, or to people who wished to pay for online content by hearing and/or viewing a sponsor’s message instead of by making a monetary payment, but was likewise found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Finally, again contrary to Applicant’s argument, Examiner does not find that the claims, as now amended, include anything substantially more than an abstract idea. Instead, well-understood, routine, and conventional technology is used to implement an essentially abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 November 25, 2025