DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 17-20 have been added, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/12/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/12/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 12-13 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims recite a specific technical implementation involving API-based data integration between distinct computing systems, citing specification paragraph [0028] disclosing the use of a uniquely defined application programming interface when one or more gaming sessions are being executed. The Applicant further argues that the amended limitation of receiving real-time auction data from a vehicle computing system during the online auction and dynamically rendering the virtual vehicle within the virtual garage based on the real-time auction data represents a technical improvement to how virtual environments are updated and displayed. Paragraph [0021] is also cited discussing that the usability of the data and/or underlying device by generating more relevant or complete data, the functioning of the underlying computing device is improved, which reduces system resource usage, by correlating the virtual auction data and real-time auction data. On pages 14-15, the Applicant argues that the combination of API-based real-time data reception with dynamic rendering of virtual vehicles based on the real-time data represents significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, citing specification [0026] disclosing various computing components communicatively coupled together, and involves computer-generated graphics than change based on external data inputs. The Applicant argues that the claimed dynamic rendering updates the graphical environment based on real-time data, which requires specific computer graphics processing to correlate external auction data with the virtual representation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The functioning of the API is not disclosed with any particularity in the specification. While paragraph [0028] discloses a “uniquely defined application programming interface”, there is no disclosure of any technical means in how the API is uniquely defined. The specification merely discloses the API for broadcasting the information stored in the vehicle database to the game management computing system, which merely represents an exchange of information. The API only serves to connect computing components, such that information for the abstract idea may be received/transmitted. Neither the claims nor the specification discuss any underlying technology of the rendering of the virtual environments or a different technical means of how computers store, retrieve, or transmit data. The receiving of real-time auction data from a vehicle computing system during the online auction and dynamically rendering the virtual vehicle within the virtual garage based on the real-time auction data represents the abstract idea, and merely provides a general link to a computing environment, such that the abstract idea is performed virtually, but does not change or improve how a computer renders a virtual environment. As disclosed in specification paragraphs [0071], [0067], and [0026], the computer is any generic computing device made of generic computing components. These elements only implement the abstract idea on a computer, such that the abstract idea is performed within a virtual environment, but are not directed to any technical undertaking of how a virtual environment is generated. The computer graphics processing is merely applied to the abstract idea to provide a general link to the virtual environment.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-14 and 17-20 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claim 15 is directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claim 16 is directed to a computer storage medium, which does not include transitory signals (specification: [0067]), which is an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 15 as representative, claim 15 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of rewarding a user for predicting a final price of a vehicle auction:
a user selection of a vehicle associated with an auction and a predicted final price for the vehicle at the auction;
receive one or more user inputs corresponding to a vehicle from the user, the one or more inputs indication a user selection of a vehicle associated with an auction and a predicted final price for the vehicle in the auction;
store the received one or more user inputs as auction data;
receive real-time auction data from a vehicle auction;
track the auction data during the auction to identify a final sale price of the vehicle at the auction;
compare the final sale price of the vehicle at the auction to the predicted final price for the vehicle at the auction to determine whether a difference between the final sale price and predicted final price satisfies one or more auction rules;
generate one or more rewards in response to determining that the difference between the final sale price and predicted final price satisfies the one or more auction rules;
cause a vehicle corresponding to the user selected vehicle to be moved into a garage based on the real-time auction data.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for rewarding a user for predicting a final price of a vehicle auction. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to receiving inputs regarding an auction, predicting a final price, and rewarding a user based on their prediction versus the final price (see specification [0003] disclosing the lack of real-world feel, such as auctions where bidding and price changes can vary), which is a marketing activity. Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 15 recites additional elements (emphasized in bold), such as:
a database storing virtual auction data;
at least one processor;
at least one memory comprising computer-readable instructions;
virtual;
a user interface of a user device;
dynamically render the virtual vehicle within the virtual garage;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 15 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite at least one processor, memory, and a database, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality, and are only recited in the preamble of the claim as performing the steps of the abstract idea. The specification also does not disclose these elements with any particularity, merely disclosing a list of possible generic components. Specification paragraph [0071] discloses that the processors may be any of ASIC, integrated circuit, FPGA, etc. Paragraph [0067] discloses that the memory is any non-transitory memory, providing examples such as any flash memory, RAM. Magnetic storage media, and optical storage media. Similarly, paragraph [0026] discloses the user device as being any of laptop computers, desktop computers, mobile gaming devices, mobile phones, etc. It is evident that these elements are any generic computing component that is merely leveraged to provide a general link to a computing environment, such that the abstract idea is performed on a computing device. While the claims disclose the elements of the idea as being virtual or online, the virtual elements (such as the auction and garage) merely represent objects of the abstract idea in a virtual setting. The claims and specification do not recite/disclose any particular technical functionality, and the elements merely provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 15 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 15, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 15 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 16 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 16 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 1 (method): Claim 1 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 15 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16 (computer storage medium): Claim 16 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 15 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 16 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 15.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 17-20 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 15, such as by further defining the algorithm of rewarding a user for predicting a final price of a vehicle auction, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 2-14 and 17-20 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-14 and 17-20 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-14 and 17-20 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 15. Further additional elements are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 2-14 and 17-20 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-14 and 17-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-14 and 17-20 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 15. Thus, dependent claims 2-14 and 17-20 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following is a restatement of reasons for subject matter over the prior art as previously indicated in the Office Action mailed on 9/12/2025:
Claims 1-20 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as set forth above.
Claims 1-20 are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons as set forth below.
Claim 1 recites the claims features of: generate one or more rewards in response to determining that the difference between the final sale price and predicted final price satisfies the one or more auction rules;
The closes prior art was found to be as follows:
Chaudhary (US 20210312511 A1) discloses [0031] – “the actual sale price of the vehicle, for example, can be compared to the predicted value and, based on this comparison, the depreciation factor or the present value calculations can be automatically adjusted by the model”.
Ansel (US 11,615,313 B1) discloses col. 20, ln. 33-37 – “the actual sale price of the vehicle, for example, can be compared to the predicted value and, based on this comparison, the depreciation factor or the present value calculations can be automatically adjusted by the model”.
Cox (US 20180158039 A1) discloses [0046] – “The virtual garage 250 may collect and store data pertaining to any vehicle registered with the system, Any vehicle purchased through the system can be automatically registered. Other vehicles owned or maintained by a system user can be manually entered into the system by the user. The virtual garage 250 may store or access data such as warranty information, servicing requirements, registration and inspection requirements, financing details, and repairs. The virtual garage 250 may track this information in order to generate reminders and offers that can be displayed on user computing devices. The virtual garage 250 may also evaluate the value of the car and the cost of a recommended repair and generate messages recommending a new car purchase”.
DelacCruz (US 20140274262 A1) discloses [0014] – “providing auction closing price guessing game includes a computer readable medium; first program instructions to obtain a list of guesses of winning bid prices for an item at auction; second program instructions to obtain a winning bid price for the item at auction; third program instructions to determine if each guess in the list of guesses is greater than or equal to the winning bid price; fourth program instructions to record the guess in a list of qualifying guesses if the guess is greater than or equal to the winning bid price; fifth program instructions to calculate the difference between each guess in the list of qualifying guesses and the winning bid price; sixth program instructions to record the difference in the list of qualifying guesses; seventh program instructions to sort the guesses in the list of qualifying guesses from the lowest difference to the highest difference; eighth program instructions to record the sorted guesses in a list of best guesses; and ninth program instructions to award a prize to a guess with the lowest difference”. Notably, DelaCruz does not disclose where the difference between the predicted and final price satisfies auction rules.
NPL Reference U (see PTO-892 Reference U mailed on 9/12/2025) disclosing an online auction with machine learning algorithms to predict the end price of auction items. Items are classified whether it will sell or not using information about the item and performing various calculations to predict the end price.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below note features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 in combination that overcome the prior art are:
generate one or more rewards in response to determining that the difference between the final sale price and predicted final price satisfies the one or more auction rules;
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims 1-20 are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 3/4/2026