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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 10, 19 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 1-5, and 8-22 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent claims.
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 currently amended claims 1, 10, and 19 recite:
1. A system for virtual and physical events involving multiple users, comprising:
(i) a computer system in communication with a datastore;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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, wherein the user interface provides the same submission controls for the physical available item in the first lane and the virtual available item in the second lane; and
(iv) 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
(v) the computer system adapted to modify the user interface responsive to receiving the submission, wherein modifying the user interface includes displaying at least one of a value of the submission, an increment associated with the submission, a physical or virtual presence of the participant at a corresponding event, and a transferee of one of the available items.
10. (Currently Amended) A system for hosting events with multiple users, comprising:
(i) a computer system in communication with a datastore;
(ii) 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;
(iii) the computer system adapted to provide an operator interface to a first computing device, the operator interface showing a lane for each of the plurality of available items;
(iv) 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;
(v) the computer system adapted to receive a selection through the operator interface on the first 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
(vi) the computer system adapted to adjust the lane assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items in the operator interface and transmit the adjusted lane assignment to a second computing device to update a participant user interface displayed on the second computing device based on the selection.
19. (Currently Amended) 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, wherein the computer system comprises an API server in communication with a relational database management system storing physical available items and an in-memory storage storing virtual available items;
(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 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 first 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;
(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;
(viii) receiving one or more submissions from the one or more participants using a submission interface of the computing system;
(ix) processing a submission for the physical available item using state machine control through the API server; and
(x) processing a submission for the virtual available item using an automated event runner through the API server, such that the user interface is updated to reflect the processing of the submission in real time.
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.
fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
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; 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, receive a submission from a participant for one of the available items; and modify the user interface responsive to receiving the submission, wherein modifying includes displaying at least one of a value of the submission, an increment associated with the submission, a physical or virtual presence of the participant at a corresponding event, and a transferee of one of the available items.”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to a commercial activity of organizing an auction/sales event where customers are enabled to submit bids, offers, requests to acquire one or more displayed available items in lanes and fall within, “Certain Methods of organizing Human Activity”. 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, wherein modifying includes displaying at least one of a value of the submission, an increment associated with the submission, a physical or virtual presence of the participant at a corresponding event, and a transferee of one of the available items”, relate to administration and management decisions and actions what to response and display responsive to submissions, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer system does not take these claim limitations related to managing and administering the event 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..
The independent claim 10 recites “ 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; showing a lane for each of the plurality of available items; assign a physical available item to a first lane and a virtual available item to a second lane; receive a selection 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 adjust the lane assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items and transmit the adjusted lane assignment to a second computing device to update a participant user based on the selection.”, which, similar to claim 1, relates to hosting events such as auctions/sales for physical and virtual items and 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 10 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” , ” relate to administration and management decisions and actions to assign different items to different lanes for display, and further adjust the lanes based on the selection, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer system does not take these claim limitations related to managing and administering the event out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 10 recites a mental process. Accordingly, claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-18 recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes..
Regarding claim 19, the highlighted limitations comprising “ 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) 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, the one or more parameters including an indication of 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) showing a lane for each of the plurality of available items; (vi) adjusting an assignment for one of the plurality of available items; (vii) adjusting the assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items (viii) receiving one or more submissions from the one or more participants (ix) processing a submission for the physical available item and (x) processing a submission for the virtual available item . ”, which, similar to claim 1, relates to hosting events such as auctions/sales for physical and virtual items and 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 19 and its dependent claims 20-21 recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitations of claim 19 comprising, “ (ii) 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, the one or more parameters including an indication of 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; (vi) selection includes adjusting an assignment for one of the plurality of available items; (vii) adjusting the assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, (ix) processing a submission for the physical available item and (x) processing a submission for the virtual available item ; 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, making adjustments based on receiving selections and processing the submissions received for physical and virtual items as per the terms of submissions. 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 and its dependent claims 20 -21 also recite a mental process.
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 1-5, 8-22: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of a computer system in communication with a data store implementing the steps of : (ii) 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; (iii) 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, wherein the user interface provides the same submission controls for the physical available item in the first lane and the virtual available item in the second lane; and (iv) receive a submission from a participant through the user interface on the computing device for one of the available items; and (v) modify the user interface responsive to receiving the submission, wherein modifying the user interface includes displaying at least one of a value of the submission, an increment associated with the submission, a physical or virtual presence of the participant at a corresponding event, and a transferee of one of the available items.. The limitations in step “ (ii) ) a plurality of events stored in the datastore ……… (iv) receive a submission from a participant through the user interface on the computing device for one of the available items;” , 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. In step “(iii) 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, wherein the user interface provides the same submission controls for the physical available item in the first lane and the virtual available item in the second lane”, is also recited at a high level of generality of providing and displaying physical and virtual items on a generic user interface, such as a webpage and amounts to mere data conveying and 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, transmitting and displaying data on a webpage, 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). None of these steps, as recited, specific technical improvement to the functioning of the computer or network or datastore or the interface or the display mechanism, but as described in the specification relate to using generic computer components for business related advantages and activities to provide customers a better experience and require organized human activity with decisions performed in human mind. Accordingly, even when considered individually and 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 recites additional elements including a generic computer system /server computer in communication with a datastore implementing the steps ( (ii) 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 the one or more parameters including an indication of 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; (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; (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; (viii) receiving one or more submissions from the one or more participants using a submission interface of the computing system;
(ix) processing a submission for the physical available item using state machine control through the API server; and (x) processing a submission for the virtual available item using an automated event runner through the API server, such that the user interface is updated to reflect the processing of the submission in real time. The limitations in steps (i) and (iv) as recited do not include any additional elements beyond the ones already considered reciting an abstract idea in Step 2A, prong One.
The limitations in steps (ii), (iii), (vi (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x), as recited are performed by a computer system/components , recited at a high level of generality, and 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). The step (x) recites using an automated event runner through the server for processing the submission and updating the interface display , wherein the interface , as described in the Specification is a webpage and the automated runner could be AI driven without providing details as how the submission is processed. Thus, the use of an automated runner is recited in a nominal manner and the step X merely recites the results of processing for updating the webpage without providing aby functional details. The recitation of “using an automated runner” also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception of processing the suppression is performed. Although the additional element “using an automated runner” limits the identified judicial exceptions “processing the suppression” and “updating the webpage [interface],” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (automated runner) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The process of providing updates in real-time is a generic computer processing and neither the limitations nor the Specification do not recite any technical improvement in implementing the updating process in real-time.
The limitations in steps” vi) receiving a selection through the operator interface using the computer system, and (viii) receiving one or more submissions from the one or more participants using a submission interface of the computing system”, are mere data gathering and output 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 output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. These limitations are recited as being performed by a computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
None of the steps, in claim 19, as analyzed above, recite specific technical improvement to the functioning of the computer or network or datastore or the interface or the display mechanism, but as described in the specification relate to using generic computer components for business related advantages and activities to provide customers a better experience and require organized human activity with decisions performed in human mind. Accordingly, when considered individually and even in combination, the 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, 11-18 and 20-22:
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 processing the submissions including determining the higher value submission 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 individually and 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 Prior art discussion:
Reference independent claim 1, 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 providing 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, wherein the user interface provides the same submission controls for the physical available item in the first lane and the virtual available item in the second lane; and modify the user interface responsive to receiving the submission, wherein modifying the user interface includes displaying at least one of a value of the submission, an increment associated with the submission, a physical or virtual presence of the participant at a corresponding event, and a transferee of one of the available items.”. Claims 2-5, 8-9 and 22 depend from claim 1.
Reference independent claim 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 providing an operator interface to a user device showing a lane for each of the plurality of available items; assigning 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; receive a selection through the operator interface on the user 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 adjust the lane assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items in the operator interface and transmit the adjusted lane assignment to a second computing device to update a participant user interface displayed on the second computing device based on the selection.”. Claims 11-18 depend from claim 10.
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; and processing a submission for the virtual available item using an automated event runner through the API server, such that the user interface is updated to reflect the processing of the submission in real time. Claims 20-21 depend from claim 19.
4. Allowability 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. All future amendments will be subject to reconsideration and search.
5. Best prior art of record:
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(I) Periyathambi et al. [US Patent# 11436655 B2; see Figs 2 and 3 and associated text] describes a user interface as a webpage displaying multiple listings [lanes or columns] of different items with each lane/listing has submission controls such as “buy it now” which are the same submission controls for a user and by interacting with an item in a lane/listing/column it results in modifying the interface to display details of the selection.
(ii) Rajyaguru et al. cited in the Final Rejection mailed 02/26/2026 [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.
(iii) Holden et al. [US Patent# 7752077 B2 ; see Fig 5 and associated description] describes comparison of items in three different lanes/columns for the same attributes.
(iv) Smith [US 7680703 B1 ; See Fig 3 and associated description ] describes comparison of items in three different lanes/columns and each column/lane for the same attributes having same controls “clear” to hide a selected item.
(v) 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:
(vi) WO 2016/164978 cited in the Final Rejection mailed 02/26/2026 [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.
(vii)) 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:
(viii) 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 9-18, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 9 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for following reasons:
Step 2A, Prong One :.
Applicant’s arguments, 9-11 refer to Step 2A, Prong One and Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments that the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas, because, as detailed above in paragraph 2, the limitations of claim 2 do recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity related to organizing event , such as auction, participation by displaying stored events data including physical and virtual items simultaneously in separate lanes such as columns and enabling interactions with users for submitting offers [submissions] which is a commercial activity comprising receiving and responding to submissions and implementing of transfer of both physical and virtual items. Modifying the displayed data in response a user’s submission and displaying updates relate to mental steps.
Similarly, the limitations of claim 10 , as detailed above comprises assigning physical and virtual items to separate lanes and adjusting assignments for both virtual and physical items do fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed part of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and also being performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly, claim 10 does recite abstract ideas.
The limitations of claim 19, as detailed above, recite a process of organizing and processing an event participation such users participating an auction by providing and displaying information from a stored database on available physical and virtual items , receiving submissions and in response processing those submissions which do relate to a commercial activity and fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Further, the limitations reciting identifying parameters, assigning items to lanes , arranging display of lanes , adjusting an assignment for the available items relate to concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III, and fall within, “Mental Processes”.
In view of the foregoing, the currently amended claims 1, 10, and 10 with their dependent claims do recite abstract idea [Step 2A, Prong One-Yes].
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Examiner has fully considered and evaluated the Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-16 reference claims 1, 10, and 19 and respectfully disagrees with them, because, when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements, as detailed above in paragraph 2 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, because they do not add any limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Applicant’s arguments, “ Amended claim 1 recites a practical application because it is directed to a specific, technical improvement in how a computing system simultaneously renders and updates a unified multi-lane user interface for heterogeneous item types. …….. The features of claim 1 are directed to a defined user interface architecture that renders heterogeneous item formats under a single, unified submission control framework, improving the user experience by giving the participant a consistent interface regardless of whether they are participating physically or virtually (See Application at paragraph [0053]). Amended claim 1 further requires the computer system to "modify the user interface responsive to receiving the submission, wherein modifying the user interface includes displaying at least one of a value of the submission, an increment associated with the submission, a physical or virtual presence of the participant at a corresponding event, and a transferee of one of the available items." These features of claim 1 recite more than a generic computer function performed at a high level of generality. Claim 1 is directed to displaying real-time and historical submission information, including the opening or asking submissions, submission increments, the location of the participant submitting, and to whom the item was transferred or not transferred (See Application at paragraph [0068]).”, are not persuasive, because merely displaying data simultaneously in two lanes which represent two columns or listings side by side on a webpage for customers to view and select and make submissions, such as offer merely amount to displaying data and not to a technical improvement in computer functioning or hardware. Similarly, modifying user interface responsive to a suer submission, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to modifying a webpage display in response to receiving a submission, such as a selection of an item to display details on a new webpage for the selected item which is a generic computer function.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s claim that claim 1 ,similar to core wireless claims, is patent eligible, because in Core Wireless the claims are directed to an improved user interface comprising “summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices requiring “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu” specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. The claims further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, “each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen with the respective application”. This claim restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window and the “summary window is displaced while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state”, a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. “ These limitations in claims of Core Wireless disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user rather than using conventional user interface to display a generic index on a computer resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices similar to Enfish, and Finjan. Core Wireless has no applicability in the instant application, because the limitations claimed here are similar to transmitting data for two separate type of items for display using GUI on a webpage in separate listings enabling interactions, receiving data, selecting data and processing data, which is a “non-significant” and “extra solution” activity using generic computer to automate manual activity, see TTI v. CQG . Here, the use of an user interface, such as webpage unlike TTI v. CQG, is directed to the routine steps of “setting, displaying, and selecting”, data for information that is visible on the webpage and does not reflect a technical improvement to the webpage/user interface.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments “Amended claim 10 likewise integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application through its recitation of a specific cross-device, real-time synchronization architecture that is inherently and irreducibly a computer network function. Specifically, amended claim 10 requires the computer system to "receive a selection through the operator interface on the first 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 "adjust the lane assignment for the one of the plurality of availability items in the operator interface and transmit the adjusted lane assignment to a second computing device to update a participant user interface displayed on the second computing device based on the Page 13 of 19 selection." This cross-device synchronization is a specific, non-abstract technical function that requires a computer network and cannot be performed mentally, with pen and paper, or through any analog process (See Application at paragraph [0063]; see also Application at paragraph [0088]/FIG. 11). Furthermore, the parameter adjustment recited in amended claim 10 enables the operator ability to reorganize available items across lanes based on non-binary parameters, such as item characteristics (e.g., remuneration value, item type, condition), to maximize visibility and event efficiency (See Application at paragraph [0056]). This non-generic parameter adjustment mechanism, combined with the real-time cross-device transmission of the updated lane assignment to update the participant user interface on the second computing device, constitutes a specific, practically-applied technical improvement to event hosting computing systems. Amended claim 10 therefore integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application and is not directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two.”, because the limitations, as recited, do not relate to a technical improvement in computer functioning, hardware because the limitations managing/assigning item placement in different lanes, such as listings on a webpage which is mere allocating and reallocating items without providing aby details on technical details. The transmitting and adjusting lane assignment to a second computer is a generic outputting data and updating data by mixing and matching the listings [lanes]. Thus, in view of the foregoing and as detailed above in para 2, the additional elements of claim 10 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 , 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.
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, reference claim 19, “ “Amended claim 19 requires "providing a computer system adapted to process the information related to the plurality of available items for one or more events, wherein the computer system comprises an API server in communication with a relational database management system storing physical available items and an in-memory storage storing virtual available items." Claim 19 therefore recites a specific, defined computing architecture consisting of distinct, named components (API server, RDMS, in-memory storage) that perform distinct, technically-defined functions for heterogeneous item types. In that regard, claim 19 is directed to the practical application in which, the API server 1015 may query a relational database management system (RDMS) 1120 where the available item is related to a physical lane, and may query an in-memory storage 1140 where the available item is related to a virtual lane, with the event runner 1030 providing information relating to available items in the virtual lane to the in-memory storage (See Application at paragraph [0088]). In response to receiving a runlist request from the computing device 112, the system generates and transmits a runlist including both the physical available items and the virtual available items (See id.). This dual-database, API-mediated architecture is a specific technical solution to the specific technical problem of routing items through fundamentally different backend processes (RDMS versus in-memory storage) while presenting a unified interface. Amended claim 19 further requires "processing a submission for the physical available item using state machine control through the API server," and "processing a submission for the virtual available item using an automated event runner through the API server, such that the user interface is updated to reflect the processing of the submission in real time." In that regard, claim 19 is further directed to the practical application in which the physical available item process is controlled by user interactions and state machine control through the API Server, while the virtual available item process utilizes a combination of user interactions through the API Server and automation provided by the event runner system (See Application at paragraph [0087]). The event runner can act autonomously based on a system of timed tasks that control the current available item on the block, opening submissions and ending submissions once the allotted time for that available item has elapsed (See id.). The features of claim 19 represent a specific improvement in how the computer system functions to manage two parallel, heterogeneous processing pipelines while presenting a unified participant interface……... 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 the additional elements of claim 19 are analyzed as per Step 2A< Prong Two, they, as analyzed above in paragraph 2, individually and in combination, they do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.(Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
The independent claim 19 recites additional elements including a generic computer system /server computer in communication with a datastore implementing the steps ( (ii) 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 the one or ……. (v) generating an operator interface to a first computing device, the operator interface showing a lane for each of the plurality of available items; (vi) receiving a selection ……, wherein the selection includes adjusting an assignment for one of the plurality of available items; (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; (viii) receiving one or more submissions …….(ix) processing a submission for the physical available item using state machine control through the API server; and (x) processing a submission for the virtual available item using an automated event runner through the API server, such that the user interface is updated to reflect the processing of the submission in real time. The limitations in steps (ii), (iii), (vi (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x), as recited are performed by a computer system/components , recited at a high level of generality, and 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). The step (x) recites using an automated event runner through the server for processing the submission and updating the interface display , wherein the interface , as described in the Specification is a webpage and the automated runner could be AI driven without providing details as how the submission is processed. Thus, the use of an automated runner is recited in a nominal manner and the step X merely recites the results of processing for updating the webpage without providing aby functional details. The recitation of “using an automated runner” also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception of processing the suppression is performed. Although the additional element “using an automated runner” limits the identified judicial exceptions “processing the suppression” and “updating the webpage [interface],” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (automated runner) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The process of providing updates in real-time is a generic computer processing and neither the limitations nor the Specification do not recite any technical improvement in implementing the updating process in real-time.
The limitations in steps” vi) receiving a selection ….., and (viii) receiving one or more submissions ….”, are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and these limitations are recited as being performed by a computer recited at a high level of generality. Here, the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). None of the steps, in claim 19, as analyzed above, recite specific technical improvement to the functioning of the computer or network or datastore or the interface or the display mechanism, but as described in the specification relate to using generic computer components for business related advantages and activities to provide customers a better experience and require organized human activity with decisions performed in human mind. Accordingly, when considered individually and even in combination, the 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.
Applicant’s arguments “ The Federal Circuit's decision in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) confirms that claims directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality are patent eligible. Amended claim 19 is analogous to the claims at issue in Enfish in that claim 19 recites a specific software and hardware architecture that improves the way the computer system functions to manage heterogeneous physical and virtual events, not merely an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer. 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”, are not persuasive, because Enfish case is not applicable here. In Enfish the claims were not directed to an abstract idea as they were directed to configuring a computer for creating a new database table resulting in improvements to computer operations which is an improvement on the existing database technology including a single table opposed to a standard model where each entry is in a separate table, including faster search times and smaller memory requirements. In the instant Application the claims are not directed to any improvement in computer operations but instead directed to an abstract idea of organizing, managing and processing an event, such as an auction or a sales event and participation of users including lane/listing assignments for different items and providing an interfaces as a webpage , which do not reflect technical improvement in computer functioning or hardware or network or on a database.
Step 2 B
Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments reference Step 2B, on pages 16-18, but are not persuasive, because when claims are analyzed per Step 2B, the additional elements in pending claims, as analyzed above in paragraph 2, considered individually in combination, these additional elements 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). Applicant’s comparison to BASCOM case is not applicable here, because, in Bascom, although the claims were directed to the abstract idea of filtering content, the inventive concept can be found in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. In Bascom the court held that claims contained ‘significantly more” than an abstract idea of ‘filtering content because they recited a separate point of novelty that is : installation of filtering tool at a specific location on Internet of the content, remote from end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. Bascom does not apply in this case. In contrast the claims in the instant application do not provide a similar unconventional functionality by using a specific filtering tool at a specific location on Internet of the content remote from end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user but instead they recite limitations implementing an abstract workflow using generic computer components including a server computer, relational database management system , memory storage, state machine control and an automated runner, such as an AI tool, but does not recite clearly as how these elements in combination function amounting to “Significantly More” rather than implementing an abstract idea.
Further, Applicant’s arguments that no prior art teaches the all the limitations, as a whole, are not relevant and persuasive , because the subject matter eligibility is analyzed per Steps 2A and Step 2B, which have been applied in paragraph 2 above and the detail analysis found the claims patent ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments “With respect to amended claim 19, the specific technical architecture of an API server in communication with both a relational database management system (for physical available items) and an in-memory storage (for virtual available items), combined with state machine control for processing physical item submissions and an automated event runner for processing virtual item submissions, all coordinated through the API server to update the user interface in real time, represents a specific, non-conventional computing architecture that is the antithesis of generic computer functions (See Application at paragraphs [0087]-[0088]; see also FIGS. 10-11). The additional elements of amended claim 19, both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than any purported judicial exception under Step 2B, and the claim is patent eligible. Thus, to any purported idea that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the above- recited limitations clearly recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than and place a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Therefore, the amended claims are subject- matter eligible under Step 2B of the flowchart used to assess subject matter eligibility of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”, are not persuasive because the additional elements
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, as analyzed per Step 2A above.. 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the foregoing, rejection of all pending claims 1-5, 8-22 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights