DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action in response to the amendment filed September 29, 2025. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 112 (b) arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that the previous list of language that renders the claims unclear was not exhaustive, and reiterates that the claims are replete with structural, grammatical, and idiomatic errors. Significant review of the claim language and appropriate correction to clarify their scope is required.
Applicant's 101 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One – Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception
Applicant contends that the claim merely involves an abstract idea rather than recites one. This argument is not persuasive.
Claim 1 explicitly recites a series of activities—valuation of assets, use of those valuations for credit facilities, securing loans, insuring and depositing assets, paying commissions, and transferring price values following an auction—that amount to fundamental economic practices performed according to business rules and contractual relationships. Such concepts fall squarely within the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity, i.e., fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
While the claim references a “transaction platform” and “microprocessor,” these generic computing components merely execute or record the financial transactions and do not impose any meaningful technological limitation on the abstract idea. Merely implementing an abstract business process on a generic computer does not render the claim non-abstract (see Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24).
Accordingly, the claim recites—not merely involves—an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Whether the Claim Integrates the Exception into a Practical Application
Applicant argues that the claim improves the “relevant technology” by combining crediting, funding, depositing, auctioning, and stock exchange services on one platform and by using a microprocessor to transfer hammer-price values to investment accounts. This argument is not persuasive.
The additional elements—namely, the “authorized body,” “transaction platform,” and “microprocessor”—are recited at a high level of generality and represent generic computer implementation of an otherwise abstract financial workflow.There is no indication in the claim or specification of any technological improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to another technical field. The “microprocessor” merely performs basic bookkeeping functions—transferring values between accounts—which is a conventional and routine use of generic computing hardware.
Applicant’s reliance on the alleged “combination of services” does not amount to an improvement in computer technology; it is an improvement in business organization, which is not a technological advancement. As stated in MPEP § 2106.05(a), using a computer to implement a business concept, even efficiently or in combination with other financial operations, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept (Significantly More)
Applicant asserts that the claim provides an inventive concept because it offers a novel combination of financial services and is “not routine or conventional.” This argument is not persuasive.
When the abstract idea of financial asset management is removed, the remaining claim elements—“microprocessor,” “transaction platform,” “authorized body,” and “auctioneer company”—are generic computer components performing their ordinary, conventional functions of data storage, transfer, and display.
There is no recitation of a specific algorithm, data structure, or unconventional computer architecture that would amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
The alleged business improvement of “creating added value for asset owners in a short time” is an economic benefit, not a technical improvement, and thus cannot supply the inventive concept required by Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
No clear method steps.The entire claim reads as a long narrative paragraph rather than a sequence of actionable steps. It describes a business process, but it never uses clear step structure like “receiving,” “storing,” “transmitting,” etc. It’s impossible to identify where one step ends and another begins.
Ambiguous terms.Terms like:
“authorized body,”
“different service,”
“sequence of financial transactions that will create added value,”
“real value,”
“A Borsa authorized bodies,”are vague and subjective, providing no clear scope.
Duplicative and repetitive language.The claim repeats entire sentences (e.g., the description of the asset owners and pawned assets) almost verbatim, which causes confusion about whether those steps are separate or redundant.
Overly long and compound structure.It is written as one single claim spanning multiple concepts (crediting, funding, insurance, stock issuance, auctioning, valuation, etc.), which reads more like a business plan than a definable method.
Accordingly, claims 1-4 fail to distinctly define the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The Examiner notes that the above list of language that renders the claims unclear is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the claims are replete with structural, grammatical, and idiomatic errors. Significant review of the claim language and appropriate correction to clarify their scope is required.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
(MPEP § 2106)
The claim is directed to a method for facilitating asset crediting, funding, depositing, auctioning, and stock exchange transactions involving physical assets such as precious metals, stones, jewelry, and artwork. As such, the claim falls within the statutory category of a “process” under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion: The claim is directed to a statutory category (process).
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception – Abstract Idea
(MPEP § 2106.04(a))
The claim is directed to managing financial transactions and legal transfer of ownership of physical assets through valuation, collateralization, auctioning, and funding. These activities fall under the judicial exception of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, specifically:
Commercial interactions, such as credit arrangements, financial guarantees, auctions, and regulatory filings. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(ii))
Additionally, steps involving determining value, receiving payments, preparing reports, and updating records are also classified as mental processes (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(iii)), as they could be performed with pen and paper or through manual execution if not tied to a computer.
Conclusion: The claim recites a judicial exception — an abstract idea related to commercial and financial activities.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
(MPEP § 2106.04(d))
Are the additional elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The claim includes components such as:
A transaction platform,
A microprocessor,
Storage or transfer of identification information,
Auction catalogs and asset records.
Evaluation Under MPEP Factors:
No improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology (MPEP § 2106.05(a)). The microprocessor and transaction platform perform basic data processing and storage functions.
The claim is not tied to a particular machine in any meaningful way (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). The use of generic computer components (e.g., microprocessors) to execute financial steps does not constitute a specific machine.
There is no transformation or reduction of an article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). Processing financial information and transferring ownership rights do not constitute a physical transformation.
The claim merely automates a traditional financial process (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) — credit issuance, auctions, collateralization — without providing a technological improvement.
Simply using a computer to facilitate an auction or financial transaction does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion: The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
(MPEP § 2106.05 and § 2106.07(a))
Do the additional elements amount to significantly more?
The recited components — microprocessor, transaction platform, asset identification, and auction preparation — are all well-understood, routine, and conventional elements typically found in commerce and financial systems.
The claimed operations, including valuation, credit issuance, auction management, and recordkeeping, are all routine financial tasks executed using generic computing elements.
There is no indication of:
An improvement to a computer,
A novel data structure,
An unconventional technical solution, or
A specialized hardware arrangement.
WURC Support:
This conclusion is supported by:
The applicant’s own specification, which does not describe any technical improvement to the microprocessor or transaction platform,
Common knowledge in the art of financial transaction systems,
Applicable case law, including Alice Corp. and Bilski, which confirm that automating commercial practices on generic computing components does not amount to “significantly more.”
Conclusion: : The claim does not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Final Conclusion
The claim is:
Directed to a statutory machine,
Recites an abstract idea,
Does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, and
Lacks an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claims 2-4:
Claims 2-4 are substantially similar in scope to claims 1 and 16, and are ineligible for the same reasons.
Examiner Comment on Prior Art
As indicated above, the claims are generally unclear, and would require substantial speculation to determine their scope. As indicated in MPEP 2173.06:
where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Accordingly, a prior art rejection has not been applied against the claims. Below are a number of prior art reference related to the general concept of the invention.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Louie (US 2013/0297438 A1) discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING BIDDING AND EXECUTION OF FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP ASSETS
Barnes (US 2011/0246212 A1) discloses METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR HIGH VALUE ASSET REGISTRATION, AUTHENTICATION, CLEAR TITLE UNDERWRITING, VALUATION, WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT, TRADING AND LIEN RECORDING
Gladstone (US 2016/0109954 A1) discloses System and Method for Liquefying and Extracting Liquidity from Illiquid Assets without Debt or Divestiture.
PTO-892 Reference U discloses Pricing in Auction Markets for Collectibles: Theory and Experimental Evidence
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G PALAVECINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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 (571) 272-6763. 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.
KATHLEEN GAGE PALAVECINO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN PALAVECINO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688