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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/16/2025.
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.
1. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 are directed to facilitating an auction for contested resources and for enabling fractional bidding entities registered to place fractional bids for fractional ownership of the contested resources and full bidding entities registered to place full bids for full ownership of the contested resources, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-10 recite a system comprising a processor system and a hardware storage device. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which an auction for contested resources is facilitated, fractional bidding entities registered to place fractional bids for fractional ownership of the contested resources and full bidding entities registered to place full bids for full ownership of the contested resources are enabled, in the following limitations:
textual information that specifies (i) a new asking price for a current bidding round and (ii) graphical status bar that comprises:
(a) a first status bar portion that is displayed in a first format representing a first amount of resources from a primary fractional bidding entity in a fractional bidding group associated with the current bidding round;
(b) a second status bar portion that is displayed in a second format representing a total amount of resources from additional fractional bidding entities in the fractional bidding group relative to the new asking price and the first amount of resources from the primary fractional bidding entity; and
(c) a third status bar portion displayed in a third format representing a remaining amount of resources needed in addition to the first amount of resources from the primary fractional bidding entity and the total amount of resources from additional fractional bidding entities to satisfy the new asking price for the current bidding round;
detect one or more new fractional bids submitted by one or more corresponding fractional bidding entities in the fractional bidding group; and
dynamically updating the graphical status bar to reflect a change in at least the third status bar portion to represent a new remaining amount of resources needed to satisfy the new asking price for the current bidding round.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with bidders to facilitate bidding on a contested resource in an auction by presenting information regarding fractional bidding and contested resources, and updating that information upon receiving a new bid. This arrangement amounts to a sales activity or behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
a processor system;
a hardware storage device storing computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor system for causing the computing system to:
generate and cause to be displayed a bidder user interface that includes a first window containing
dynamically update the first window by at least
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 71-77 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The courts have explicitly indicated that arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (see Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claims 2-10
Claims 2-10 set forth further embellishments to the abstract idea of facilitating an auction for contested resources and for enabling fractional bidding entities registered to place fractional bids for fractional ownership of the contested resources and full bidding entities registered to place full bids for full ownership of the contested resources. While the claims do set forth generating and causing to be displayed additional windows, such additional limitations are similar to those in claim 1, and amount to merely the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. As such, they not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 11244413 B2, hereinafter Lee) in view of Peterson et al. (US 7246092 B1, hereinafter Peterson).
Regarding Claim 1
Lee discloses a computing system for generating and updating user interfaces for facilitating an auction for contested resources and for enabling fractional bidding entities registered to place fractional bids for fractional ownership of the contested resources and full bidding entities registered to place full bids for full ownership of the contested resources, the computing system comprising:
a processor system (Lee: col. 1: line 59 – col. 2: line 9);
a hardware storage device storing computer-executable instructions that are executable by the processor system for causing the computing system (Lee: col. 1: line 59 – col. 2: line 9); to:
generate and cause to be displayed a bidder user interface that includes a first window containing textual information that specifies (i) a new asking price for a current bidding round and (ii) graphical status bar (Lee: see at least fig. 17, col. 20: 54-57) that comprises:
(a) a first status bar portion that is displayed in a first format representing a first amount of resources from a primary fractional bidding entity in a fractional bidding group associated with the current bidding round (Lee: see at least fig. 17: equity shares already funded represented by filled (black) portion of status bar);
(c) a third status bar portion displayed in a third format representing a remaining amount of resources needed in addition to the first amount of resources from the primary fractional bidding entity and the total amount of resources from additional fractional bidding entities to satisfy the new asking price for the current bidding round (Lee: see at least fig. 17: equity available represented by empty portion (white) of status bar);
detect one or more new fractional bids submitted by one or more corresponding fractional bidding entities in the fractional bidding group (Lee: see at least col. 8: 20-41: system detects “Invest Now” entry, i.e., bid, from user)
While Lee discloses displaying a status bar with multiple portions indicating various data associated with fractional ownership offerings (see above), and updating ownership status of contested resources in response to a bid (see at least claim 12), Lee does not explicitly disclose:
(b) a second status bar portion that is displayed in a second format representing a total amount of resources from additional fractional bidding entities in the fractional bidding group relative to the new asking price and the first amount of resources from the primary fractional bidding entity; and
dynamically update the first window by at least dynamically updating the graphical status bar to reflect a change in at least the third status bar portion to represent a new remaining amount of resources needed to satisfy the new asking price for the current bidding round
Peterson teaches that it is known to include displaying data representing a total amount of resources from additional fractional bidding entities in the fractional bidding group relative to the new asking price and the first amount of resources from the primary fractional bidding entity (see at least col. 6: 21-49) and updating the displayed data to reflect a change in at least the third status bar portion to represent a new remaining amount of resources needed to satisfy the new asking price for the current bidding round (see at least col. 6: 21-49) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Lee, with the teachings of Peterson, since such a modification would have presented additional depth of information of assets available in the market, increasing liquidity (see at least col. 2: 24-34 of Peterson)
Regarding Claims 3, 5, 7
Lee further discloses:
generate and cause to be displayed a fourth window comprising textual information representing a total amount of resources bid by the primary fractional bidding entity including the new amount of resources bid by the primary fractional bidding and any auction fees associated with the new amount of resources bid by the primary fractional bidding entity (Lee: see at least Fig. 19)
display a sixth window comprising one or more previously completed bidding rounds, each bidding round comprising textual information representing a previously completed total bid amount and a type of bidding user as either fractional bidding users or a full bidding user associated with the previously competed total bid amount, and a previous amount bid by the primary fractional bidding user included in the previously completed total bid amount (Lee: see at least Fig. 19)
display an eighth window comprising graphical and textual information describing an asset corresponding to the current bidding round, including an estimated valuation of the asset. (Lee: see at least fig. 23)
3. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Peterson, as applied above, and further in view of Rockefeller et al. (US 10922748 B1, hereinafter Rockefeller).
Lee in view of Peterson disclose displaying fractional bid information via a status bar in a bidding interface, as indicated above. However Lee in view of Peterson does not explicitly disclose, but Rockefeller teaches in a similar environment:
generate and cause to be displayed a second window comprising a first selectable object that is selectable to cause the computing system to display a third window configured to receive user input from the primary fractional bidding entity to edit a previously placed bid in the current bidding round; and dynamically update the first window by at least dynamically updating the graphical status bar to reflect a change in the first status bar portion to represent the new, edited bid placed by the primary fractional bidding entity. (Rockefeller: col. 24: 53 – col. 25: 4; fig. 27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Lee in view of Peterson, with the teachings of Rockefeller, since such a modification would have allowed borrowers to compete for investor funding. (Rockefeller: col. 3: 1-3)
4. Claims 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Peterson, as applied above, and further in view of Guennouni (US 20230067308 A1).
Lee in view of Peterson disclose displaying fractional bid information via a status bar in a bidding interface, as indicated above. However Lee in view of Peterson does not explicitly disclose, but Guennouni teaches in a similar environment:
display a seventh window comprising a live video feed of an environment in which the auction is currently taking place. (Guennouni: see at least ¶135, 188)
receive user input at the graphical user interface comprising (i) an auto-bid amount to be bid automatically during each bidding round and (ii) a specified bidding criteria (Guennouni: ¶150)
wherein the specified bidding criteria is a maximum asking price of the asset associated with a particular bidding round. (Guennouni: ¶150)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Lee in view of Peterson, with the teachings of Guennouni, since such a modification would have given a seller (or transferring party) options to sell/transfer their object or service, with the options lessening existing time, monetary and efficiency costs (Guennouni: see ¶2).
5. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Peterson, as applied above, and further in view of Amigo (US 20120271663 A1).
Lee in view of Peterson disclose displaying fractional bid information via a status bar in a bidding interface, as indicated above. However Lee in view of Peterson does not explicitly disclose, but Amigo teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the specified bidding criteria is a minimum percentage of ownership associated with the current bidding round based on the auto-bid amount relative to a total amount of resources bid by all other fractional bidding users in the current bidding round. (Amigo: ¶99)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Lee in view of Peterson, with the teachings of Amigo, since such a modification would have allowed participants to limit or entirely avoid participating in policies that fail to fit within their desired risk profiles (Amigo: see ¶8)
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blockchain, fractional ownership, and the future of creative work. (PTO-892 Reference U) discusses the state of the art of using blockchain to implement a fractional ownership scheme for creative works such as art.
Silk et al. (US 20160042457 A1) discloses a system and method for conducting a real estate auction in a network, including managing fractional ownership of real estate properties through auctions.
Vlahoplus et al. (US 20020029183 A1) discloses an electronic ownership control system and method, including facilitating transfer of partial ownership of commodities to bidders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688