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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 01/20/2026 is entered. Claims 1-4, 8-9, 10 and 19 are currently amended. New claims 21-22 are added. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent claims. Claims 2-5, 8-9 and 22 depend from claim 1, claims 11-18 depend from claim 10, and claims 20-21 depend from claim 19. Claims 1-5, 8-22 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-5, 8-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-5, 8-18, 22 are to a system /apparatus and claims 19-21 are to a process comprising a series of steps, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Independent Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A system for virtual and physical events involving multiple users, comprising:
a computer system in communication with a datastore;
a plurality of events stored in the datastore, each event having item transfer data, the item transfer data including information associated with a physical transfer of available items and a virtual transfer of available items;
the computer system adapted to provide a user interface to a computing device, the user interface simultaneously showing lane associated with a physical available item in the physical transfer and a virtual second lane associated with a virtual available item in the virtual transfer; and
the computer system adapted to receive a submission from a participant through the user interface on the computing device for one of the of available items; and
the computer system adapted to modify the user interface responsive to receiving the submission.
10. A system for hosting events with multiple users, comprising:
(i) a computer system in communication with a datastore; a plurality of events stored in the datastore, including virtual events and physical events; each of the plurality of events having a plurality of available items, including virtual items and physical items;
(ii) the computer system adapted to provide an operator interface to a computing device, the operator interface showing a lane for each of the plurality of available items;
(iii) the computer system adapted to assign a physical available item to a first lane of the operator interface and a virtual available item to a second lane of the operator interface;
(iv) the computer system adapted to receive a selection through the operator interface on the computing device for adjusting an assignment for one of the plurality of available items according to a parameter different than physicality or virtuality of the one of the available items, and
(v) the computer system adapted to adjust the lane assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items in the operator interface based on the selection.
19. A method for hosting physical and virtual events with one or more participants, comprising:
(i) providing information related to a plurality of available items, including physical available items or virtual available items;
(ii) providing a computer system adapted to process the information related to the plurality of available items for one or more events;
(iii) identifying one or more parameters associated with the plurality of available items using the computing system, the one or more parameters including an indication whether an available item is a physical item or a virtual item;
(iv) assigning the plurality of available items to a plurality of lanes of the one or more events, the plurality of lanes including either a first lane or a second lane based on whether the available item is the physical item or the virtual item;
(v) generating an operator interface to a computing device, the operator interface showing a lane for each of the plurality of available items;
(vi) receiving a selection through the operator interface using the computer system, wherein the selection includes adjusting an assignment for one of the plurality of available items; and
(vii) adjusting the assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items in a user interface provided to a second computing device based on the selection.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations in claim 1 comprising, a plurality of events stored in the datastore, each event having item transfer data, the item transfer data including information associated with a physical transfer of available items and a virtual transfer of available items; receive a submission from a participant for one of the of available items”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, and when the terms “events” and “submissions” are interpreted as defined in the Specification [para 0049 clarifies that the events can include “auctions, sales, transactions, deals, purchases, fairs, tradeshows,”, and para 0052 clarifies that the “submissions” can include “bids, offers, requests or other attempt to obtain the one or more available items. Also, claim 2 confirms that the items are displayed as part of sales or an auction event wherein the participants can submit bids”], relate to a commercial activity, such as an event including an auction for items where the participants submit bids [submissions] to acquire them falling within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim 1 also recites the limitations, “ modify the user interface responsive to receiving the submission”, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human operator can user a paper as a prototype of a web page [user interface] and make any changes based on a submission , such as a selection from a user. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 10 recites a mental process. Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5, 8-9 and 22 recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes..
Since the independent claim 10 recites hosting events such as auctions for physical and virtual items “ a plurality of events stored in the datastore, including virtual events and physical events; each of the plurality of events having a plurality of available items, including virtual items and physical items”, similar to claim 1, it is analyzed on the same basis as claim 1 reciting “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.. Accordingly, claim 1o and its dependent claims 11-18 recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations of claim 10 comprising, “assign a physical available item to a first lane and a virtual available item to a second lane ; adjusting an assignment for one of the plurality of available items according to a parameter different than physicality or virtuality of the one of the available items, and adjust the lane assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items based on the selection” , ”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human operator can process the information related to items and differentiate and assign them to different lanes based on their physical and virtual nature for an event such as an auction, identify the parameters of the available items , and assign the physical and virtual items separately to the physical lane and virtual lane and further making adjustments based on receiving selections . The mere nominal recitation of by a computer system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 10 recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 19, the highlighted limitations comprising “ A method for hosting physical and virtual events with one or more participants, comprising: process the information related to the plurality of available items for one or more events; identifying one or more parameters associated with the plurality of available items, the one or more parameters including an indication whether an available item is a physical item or a virtual item; assigning the plurality of available items to a plurality of lane of the one or more events the plurality of lanes including either a first lane or a second lane based on whether the available item is the physical item or the virtual item; adjusting the assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items based on the selection. ”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human operator can process the information related to an event such as an auction, identify the parameters of the available items , and assign the physical and virtual items separately to the physical lane and virtual lane and further making adjustments based on receiving selections . The mere nominal recitation of by a computer system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 19 recites a mental process. Also, since the limitations are directed to hosting events which as analyzed above for claims 1 and 10 can be auction and sales events , they relate to commercial activity falling within, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since claims 1, 10 and 19 recite limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for claims 10 and 19 and their dependent claims 11-18 and 20-21 respectively for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Thus, all pending claims 1-5, 8-22 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of (i) a plurality of events stored in the datastore, ….(ii)the computer system adapted to provide a user interface to a computing device, the user interface simultaneously showing a first lane associated with a physical available item in the physical transfer and a second lane associated with a virtual available item in the virtual transfer; (iii) the computer system adapted to receive a submission from a participant through the user interface on the computing device for one of the available items; and (iv) the computer system adapted to modify the user interface responsive to receiving the submission. The limitations in step (i) and step (iii) are mere data storing and data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and storing, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and storing. See MPEP 2106.05. Regarding step (ii) it is also recited at a high level of generality of displaying physical and virtual items on a generic user interface and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. The computer in all these three steps is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of storing data, displaying data, and receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations ((iv), the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
When analyzing the independent claim 10, the additional elements are similar as those of claim1 including storing data, displaying/outputting/transmitting data, and receiving data related to the physical and virtual items [selections from displayed available items], which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and other limitations reciting mental processes, such as assigning items to different lanes, and adjusting the lane assignment as per their properties , which are analyzed under Step 2A, Prong one and as such the additional elements of claim 10 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 10 is directed to the abstract idea.
The independent claim 19 includes additional elements: (i)providing information related to a plurality of available items, including physical available items or virtual available items; (ii) providing a computer system adapted to process the information related to the plurality of available items for one or more events; (iii) identifying one or more parameters associated with the plurality of available items using the computing system, the one or more parameters
Including an indication of either a whether an available item is a physical item or a virtual item; (v) generating an operator interface to a first computing device, the operator interface showing a lane for each of the plurality of available items; and (vi) receiving a selection through the operator interface using the computer system, wherein the selection includes adjusting an assignment for one of the plurality of available items; and (vii) adjusting the assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items in a user interface provided to a second computing device based on the selection.
The limitations in step (i) and step (vi) are mere data transmitting and data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and transmitting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05. The step (ii) the limitations do not recite any specific computer function except for stating processing information related to items, which amounts to a generic computing function, which computers are known to carry out. of processing information related to items, which a computer does.. without specifying any specific function Regarding step (v) it is also recited at a high level of generality of displaying physical and virtual items in their respective lanes [columns or rows] on a generic user interface and amounts to mere extra-solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. The computer in all these four steps is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of storing data, displaying data, and receiving data and processing information. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations in steps (iii) of identifying parameters of the available plurality of items , both physical and virtual, in step (iv) assigning them to their respective lanes based on their properties, and in step (vii) adjusting the assignment based on selection, under their broadest reasonable interpretation , cover performance in mind and can be done manually using a pen and paper. In these limitations the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements in claim 19 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 19 is directed to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-9, 12-18 and 20:
Limitations in dependent claims 2-3 recite enabling submissions as bids and enabling transfers [fulfilling transactions] of available items in the auctions based on bidding which are generic computer functions. Limitations in dependent claims 4-5, 8-9 and 22 recite dragging and dropping items from one location to another , such as from one lane[ which can be in a column or row form] to another lane or column, providing notifications , and processors communicating with each other, and selection of events [such as auctions] and displaying items and related data for those events [auctions]. The limitations in claim 9 are directed to providing remuneration and the remuneration from the past similar events [auctions] is updated which is commercial activity making payments for services. Executing such steps are not inextricably tied to computer functions as they can be carried out manually. The ruse of trained learned model for providing remuneration is recited in a very nominal manner without providing aby details of using a trained learning model and thus the recitation of the trained learning model merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). All these limitations in dependent claims 2-9 are generic computer functions and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-9 are directed to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 11-17 have been fully considered and they merely recite generic computer functions, as discussed similar to for independent claims 1, and 10 and for dependent claims 2-5,8-9 and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims 11-17 are directed to the abstract idea.
Limitations in claim 18 recite obtaining information for the available items, parsing the information, identifying particular formats of the items to be assigned to particular lanes, providing identification for the lanes and an assigned number for each of the plurality of available items, receive user inputs , such as bids/offers, for one or more of the plurality of available items, which all relate to using a computer as a tool to implement generic computer functions, see MPEP 2106.05 (f). Accordingly, limitations of claim18 and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore, are directed to the abstract idea.
Limitations in claim 20 recite receiving submissions [such as bids and offers for the displayed available items processing them and notifying the highest bidder and limitations of claim 21 recite a mental process of assigning items which are and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore, are directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-5, 8-22 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims 1-5, 8-22 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-5, 8-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claims 1-20 recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-5, 8-22 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements of storing data, receiving data, transmitting data and displaying data were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting/displaying/presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements in claims 1-5, 8-22 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1-5, 8-22, as recited, are not patent eligible.
3 Note: If the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, the application can be placed in condition for allowance.
4 Prior art discussion:
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 22 and 10-18
Reference independent claims 1, and 10, the prior art of record alone or combined neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising a computer system in communication with a datastore storing a plurality of events [wherein these events could include auctions or sales events/transactions, etc.] , each of the plurality of events having transfer data including information associated with a physical transfer of available items and a virtual transfer of available items; providing a user interface simultaneously showing lane associated with a physical available item in the physical transfer and a virtual second lane associated with a virtual available item in the virtual transfer, and the computer system adapted to modify the user interface responsive to receiving the submission/selection [Claims 2-5, 8-9, 22 depend from claim 1, and claims 11-18 depend from claim 10:.
Claims 19-21: Reference independent claim 19, the prior art of record alone or combined neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising a process identifying one or more parameters associated with the plurality of available items for one or more events hosted using a computing system, including an indication whether an available item is a physical item or a virtual item, assigning the plurality of available items to a plurality of lanes of the one or more events, including either a first lane or a second lane based on whether the available item is the physical item or the virtual item; generating an operator interface to a first computing device and showing a lane for each of the plurality of available items, wherein the received selection includes adjusting an assignment for one of the plurality of available items, and adjusting the assignment for the one of the plurality of available items, provided to a second computing device based on the selection. Claims 20-21 depend from claim 19.
5. Best prior art of record:
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Rajyaguru et al. [US Patent 8,401,924 B1; see Abstract, Fig.4 and associated text ] describes displaying separate lanes/columns for different items with their properties enabling users to view comparative view and make selections.
(ii) Gomez [US Patent# 8,912,979 B1; see Abstract and col.2, lines 14-32 ] describes methods and systems for simultaneously providing a virtual window and a physical-world view in the HMD [head-mounted display], displaying, in the virtual window, a portion of a media item that corresponds to a field of view, determine movement of the field of view, and update the portion of the media item that is displayed in the virtual window, receive mode-switching input data and responsively cause the HMD to switch between the first mode and a second mode, and responsive to the mode-switching input data, cause the HMD to operate in the second mode.
(iii) Guinn et al. [U 20130281188 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 08/20/2025 ; see Fig.5 and associated text para 0033] describes an online gaming interface presents simultaneously multiple views of players in a live casino, wherein a graphical user interface 500 includes an online gaming interface 502 in one row and a live casino interface 503 in another, wherein the online gaming interface 502 shows an online slots game [virtual items] being played by online players. The live casino interface 503 includes two views (504 and 506). The view 504 presents a live media feed showing a particular player at a particular bank of slot machines in a real casino.
(iv) Handler [US Patent 7162446 B1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 08/20/2025; see Abstract and col.1, lines 49-64] describes an integrated auction comprising both traditional and online auctions including a live, in-person auction component and an online bidding environment component. Bidding information associated with an item in the online bidding environment is updated to reflect a current bid associated with the item in the live, in-person auction. During the live, in-person auction, a bid may be accepted from an online bidder in the online environment.
Foreign references:
(v) WO 2016/164978 [See Fig.7 and associated text of para 141 describes a
graphical user interface 700 of a web page of a real estate property comparison website, displaying several lanes/columns of real estate properties for comparison with each other and for making selections by a user.
(vi)) CN 113730903 A cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 08/20/2025 describes a game application program comprising data triggers an output event from the output component, wherein a physical toy [physical item} and a game avatar [virtual item] collectively represent a toy simultaneously present in the virtual world and the real world, and wherein the physical interaction with the physical toy directly affects the game avatar in the virtual world, and playing the game avatar in the game application results in response reactions in the physical toy.
NPL reference:
(iii) Arlena Sawyers; “EBlock acquires physical auctions to give dealers the option of transacting digitally or in-lane: published August 31, 2022 on www.autoremarketing.com website and the article retrieved from Google on 08/17/2025 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 08/20/2025 describes providing options to car dealers the option of transacting online or in-person at physical auctions or a combination of those venues.
Response to Arguments
6.1 Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-15, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 9 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for following reasons:
Step 2A, Prong One :.
Applicant’s arguments, “ To be an abstract idea, the claim must recite limitations that incorporate mathematical concepts or constitute mental processes or certain methods or techniques of organizing human activity. See MPEP §2106.04(a). Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite any limitations falling within any of these enumerated groupings. In that regard, the amended claims do not recite any mathematical relations, formulas, or calculations. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I).”, are not persuasive, because the Applicant ‘s arguments do not address the Examiner’s submission that the limitations in claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, “ Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Further, Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite “Mental Processes” as they require computer to process them, because Step 2A, Prong One , as explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim states that if the limitations “recite” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations claims 1 and 10, “ modify the user interface responsive to receiving the submission”, and “ “assign a physical available item to a first lane and a virtual available item to a second lane ; adjusting an assignment for one of the plurality of available items according to a parameter different than physicality or virtuality of the one of the available items, and adjust the lane assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items based on the selection”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation as discussed above in paragraph 2 do “set forth” and “describe” Mental processes. The mere recitations of a generic computer does not preclude these steps from practically being performed in the mind and take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 10. Thus claims 1, 10, and 19 with their dependent claims 2-5, 8-9, 22, 11-18 and 20-21 respectively recite judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, “ the claimed approach is directed to the practical application of hosting an event that concurrently integrates lanes for physical items and lanes for virtual items within unified operator and participant interfaces, enabling consistent submissions, reassignment of items across lane types, and synchronized notifications and displays (See Application at Paragraphs [0051]-[0058], [0065]-[0073], and [0076]-[0081]. Through this practical application, the claimed approach imparts the technological improvement of a unified event computing system that renders, in real time, synchronized multi-lane interfaces for heterogeneous item formats (physical and virtual), with state-machine control and automated runner processes to coordinate submissions and UI updates across device clients (See id.). As the foregoing illustrates, any purported abstract idea recited in the amended claims is integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible. Thus, because the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, and because the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible under Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance. “, because when analyzed per Step 2A, Prong Two the additional elements, as drafted, do not integrate the abstract add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims , as drafted, recite generic computer components performing the functions of mere data storing and data gathering, data transmitting/providing, displaying data in the form of columns/lanes recited at a high level of generality, which are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The computer in all these steps is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of storing data, displaying data, and receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, the steps of assigning data in columns, adjusting/modifying data as per their properties whether physical or virtual items and based upon a user’ selection , , as analyzed above fall under Mental Processes. In these limitations the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s arguments that these steps amount to “ a practical application imparting technological improvement of a unified event computing system that renders, in real time, synchronized multi-lane interfaces for heterogeneous item formats (physical and virtual), with state-machine control and automated runner processes to coordinate submissions and UI updates across device clients (See id.).”, are not found persuasive. In fact, Even when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B:
Applicant claims that the claims recite applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP §2106.05(b)). Examiner disagrees, because generic computers are used implementing generic computer functions of mere data storing and data gathering, data transmitting/providing, displaying data in the form of columns/lanes recited at a high level of generality, which are insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer system, see Specification para 0044, “ Any computer configuration and architecture satisfying the speed and interface requirements herein described may be suitable for implementing the system and method of the present embodiments.” Clearly states that any generic computers can be used for performing the recited functions, which as analyzed above are performing generic computer functions of storing data, displaying data, and receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and mental processes. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
In view of foregoing, rejection of pending claims 1-5, 8-22 under 35 USC 101, when analyzed as per Step2A and Step 2B, is sustainable and is maintained.
6.2. Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to rejection of 1-20 claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the current amendments. The rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
7. Final Rejection
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 YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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 A. 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.
YOGESH C. GARG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688