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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to system for managing contested resource allocation between full and fractional bidding entities, classified in G06Q 30/08.
II. Claims 16-20, drawn to system for managing contested resource allocation between singular and distributed entities, classified in G06Q 30/0609.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for determining that a first total bid amount from a first bidding entity at least meets a first asking price for the contested resource in a first bidding round and determining that a second total bid amount from a second bidding entity does not meet a second asking price for a contested resource in a second bidding round. The subcombination has separate utility such as determining that a first total reciprocal resource amount corresponding to a first node entity at least meets the initial reciprocal resource amount for the contested resource in a first allocation round and determining that a second total reciprocal resource amount corresponding to a second node entity does not meet a subsequent reciprocal resource amount for the contested resource in a second allocation round.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or
(b) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Levi Brown (Reg. No. 72,533) on 01/26/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite system for managing shares ownership distribution associated with an auction.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“identify (i) a contested resource and (ii) a predetermined quantity of shares associated with the contested resource;
identify a plurality of bidding entities in the auction bidding for one or more shares of the contested resource, the plurality of bidding entities including…;
determine that a first total bid amount from a first bidding entity at least meets a first asking price for the contested resource in a first bidding round;
determine that a second total bid amount from a second bidding entity does not meet a second asking price for a contested resource in a second bidding round;
determine that the first bidding entity is a winning bidding entity associated with the contested resource;
determine whether the first bidding entity is a full bidding entity or a fractional bidding group;
in response to determining that the first bidding entity is the winning bidding entity and a fractional bidding group, determine and allocate different subsets of shares from the predetermined quantity of shares that are proportional to individual fractional bid amounts corresponding to different fractional bidding entities in the fractional bidding group associated with the first bidding round; or alternatively,
in response to determining that the first bidding entity is a full bidding entity, allocating all of the predetermined quantity of shares associated with the contested resource to the first bidding entity.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) defining contested resources (including shares) and bidding entities, 2) acquiring bidding data and comparing the received bidding data to first and second asking prices, 3) determining the winning bid (with associated bidding entity), and 4) allocating shares based on the winning bid.
The above steps describe the process of managing shares distribution associated with an auction. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (fundamental economic practices or principles) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practices or principles, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element in the form of a computing system, having a processor and storage device, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The computing system represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The computing system represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-15 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
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, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2023/0267450 (Bathen et al. – hereinafter Bathen), and further in view of “Background of Invention” (Applicant’s filed Specification).
Referring to claim 1, Bathen discloses a computing system for managing allocation of contested resources between full bidding entities and fractional bidding entities bidding on the contested resources in an auction, the computing system comprising:
a processor system; and [See paragraphs 0035, 0038]
a hardware storage device storing computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor system to cause the computing system to: [See paragraphs 0035, 0038]
identify (i) a contested resource and (ii) a predetermined quantity of shares associated with the contested resource; [See paragraphs 0002, 0017, 0021, 0024 – NFTs can be scarce and limited in supply.]
identify a plurality of bidding entities in the auction bidding for one or more shares of the contested resource, the plurality of bidding entities including: [See paragraphs 0025, 0043, 0044,
one or more full bidding entities registered to bid on the contested resource for a full ownership of the contested resource, and [See paragraphs 0045, 0053, 0054]
one or more fractional bidding groups, wherein each fractional bidding group comprises a plurality of fractional bidding entities that are registered to bid on the contested resource for a fractional ownership of the contested resource as part of a fractional bidding group that collectively bids for full ownership of the contested resource; [See paragraphs 0045-0047, 0057-0063]
determine that the first bidding entity is a winning bidding entity associated with the contested resource; [See paragraphs 0044, 0048-0050, 0052]
determine whether the first bidding entity is a full bidding entity or a fractional bidding group; [See paragraphs 0044, 0048-0050, 0052-0054]
in response to determining that the first bidding entity is the winning bidding entity and a fractional bidding group, [See paragraphs 0057-0063]
determine and allocate different subsets of shares from the predetermined quantity of shares that are proportional to individual fractional bid amounts corresponding to different fractional bidding entities in the fractional bidding group associated with the first bidding round; or [See paragraphs 0057-0063]
alternatively, in response to determining that the first bidding entity is a full bidding entity, allocating all of the predetermined quantity of shares associated with the contested resource to the first bidding entity. [See paragraphs 0053, 0054, 0057-0063]
Bathen does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
determine that a first total bid amount from a first bidding entity at least meets a first asking price for the contested resource in a first bidding round; and
determine that a second total bid amount from a second bidding entity does not meet a second asking price for a contested resource in a second bidding round.
“Background of Invention” teaches the limitations:
determine that a first total bid amount from a first bidding entity at least meets a first asking price for the contested resource in a first bidding round; and [See paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0008 – Auctions are well known in the art to having one or more rounds until a highest bid wins.]
determine that a second total bid amount from a second bidding entity does not meet a second asking price for a contested resource in a second bidding round. [See paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0008 – Auctions are well known in the art to having one or more rounds until a highest bid wins.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Bathen to have incorporated auction rounds feature as in “Background of Invention” with the motivation of providing a trading/auctioning marketplace for trading/auctioning items. [See Bathen paragraphs 0016-0025]
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 1, the computer-executable instructions being further executable to cause the computing system to: determine that a third total bid amount from a third bidding entity in the first bidding round meets the first asking price for the contested resource but is received subsequent to the first total bid amount from the first bidding entity; and reject the third total bid amount from the third bidding entity based on the third total bid amount being received after the first total bid amount. [See Bathen paragraphs 0044, 0048-0050, 0052-0054]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 2, the computer-executable instructions being further executable to cause the computing system to: based on a determined subset of shares for a particular fractional bidding entity, adjust an individual fractional bid amount corresponding to the particular fractional bidding entity to match a subset amount associated with the subset of shares. [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0057-0063]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 3, the computer-executable instructions being further executable to cause the computing system to: in response to adjusting the corresponding individual fractional bid amount, generating and updating a user interface that displays a summary window on a computing screen associated with the particular fractional bidding entity, the summary window comprising textual and graphical information about the subset of shares of the contested resource, the adjusted individual fractional bid amount relative to the first asking price, and any fees incurred. [See Bathen paragraphs 0019, 0044, 0057-0063]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 1, the computer-executable instructions being further executable to cause the computing system to: in response to allocating different amounts of shares to different fractional bidding entities, triggering a request for payment from each different fractional bidding entity; receiving a plurality of payment confirmations based on the request for payment from each different fractional bidding entities; determining that all of the payment requests have been confirmed; and releasing the allocated shares of the contested resource to a respective fractional bidding entity based on the different subsets of shares that were allocated to different fractional bidding entities. [See Bathen paragraphs 0025, 0048, 0052, 0053, 0057-0063]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 1, the computer-executable instructions being further executable to cause the computing system to: during the first bidding round, identify one or more fractional bidding entities that attempted to place bids for the contested resource but whose bids were not included in the fractional group; and maintaining a queue of alternate fractional bidding entities associated with the first bidding round. [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 6, the computer-executable instructions being further executable to cause the computing system to:
in response to allocating different amounts of shares to different fractional bidding entities, triggering a request for payment from each different fractional bidding entity; [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063]
receiving a plurality of payment confirmations based on the request for payment from each different fractional bidding entities; [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063]
determining that at least one payment request for a certain fractional bidding entity has been denied; [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063]
triggering a request for payment from an alternate fractional bidding entity in the queue of alternate fractional bidding entities; [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063]
determining that all outstanding payment requests, including the request for payment from the alternate fractional bidding entity, have been confirmed; [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063]
in response to confirming the request for payment from the alternate fractional bidding entity, redefining the fractional group to exclude the certain fractional bidding entity and include the alternate fractional bidding entity; [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063]
re-allocating different amounts of shares associated with the contested resource to different fractional bidding entities included in the redefined fractional group; and [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063]
releasing the re-allocated shares of the contested resource to a respective fractional bidding entity based on the different subsets of shares that were allocated to the different fractional bidding entities of the redefined fractional group. [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063]
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein each bidding entity of the plurality of bidding entities is associated with an individual maximum investment amount. [See Bathen paragraphs 0025, 0048]
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 8, wherein each bidding entity of the plurality of bidding entities is a verified bidding entity based on applying a different verification process for different individual maximum investment amounts. [See Bathen paragraphs 0025, 0048, 0066]
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 9, wherein a first bidding entity of the plurality of bidding entities is associated with a first individual maximum investment amount, wherein the computing system applies a first verification process comprising requesting self-reported investor accreditation. [See Bathen paragraphs 0025, 0048, 0066]
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 9, wherein a second bidding entity of the plurality of bidding entities is associated with a second individual maximum investment amount that is higher than the first individual maximum investment amount, wherein the computing system applies a second verification process comprising requesting authorization to run a credit check on the second bidding entity. [See Bathen paragraphs 0025, 0048, 0066]
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 9, wherein a third bidding entity of the plurality of bidding entities is associated with a third individual maximum investment amount that is higher than the second individual maximum investment amount, wherein the computing system applies a third verification process comprising requesting a validation letter for the third bidding entity. [See Bathen paragraphs 0025, 0048, 0066]
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 1, the computer-executable instructions being further executable to cause the computing system to: during the first bidding round, generating and dynamically updating a user interface displayed on a computing screen included in the computing system associated with a particular fractional bidding entity, the user interface displaying textual and graphical information representing a current individual fractional bid amount placed by the particular fractional bidding entity relative to (i) a sum of additional individual fractional bid amounts placed by additional fractional bidding entities and (ii) the first asking price, such that when new bids are placed by the additional fractional bidding entities, the textual and graphical information is updated to reflect changes in the sum of additional individual fractional bid amounts relative to the current individual fractional bid amount. [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063]
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein entry to the fractional group is prioritized by timestamps associated with individual fractional bids placed by the different fractional bidding entities, such that bids with earlier timestamps are more likely to be included in the fractional group than bids with later timestamps. [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063; “Background of Invention” paragraph 0005]
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Bathen and “Background of Invention” discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein entry to the fractional group is prioritized by bid amounts associated with individual fractional bids placed by the different fractional bidding entities, such that bids with larger bid amounts are more likely to be included in the fractional group than bids with smaller bid amounts. [See Bathen paragraphs 0045-0047, 0052-0054, 0057-0063; “Background of Invention” paragraph 0005]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627