DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed May 11, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed February 11, 2026. Claims 2-17 were previously pending and claims 2 and 8 have been amended. Claims 2-17 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to objection to the specification in the previous office action
The specification was objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). The amendment has resolved this issue and the objection is withdrawn.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 112 in the previous office action
Claims 2-17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The amendment has overcome this ground of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues
“the claimed invention resolves a problem similar to that of the invention of Trading Techs Int'l Inc. v. CQG, Inc…. A specific, structured graphical user interface that improves the accuracy of trader transactions by displaying bid and asked prices in a particular manner that prevents order entry at a changed price…. As noted by the Specification, para. [0238] " ... value determined for the requested art may be adjusted based on time of use. For example, it may cost less bid points to use a given work of art for six months as compared to using it for one year (which may be twice the bid price).” Thus, unless the GUI is itself updated according to a user's selection of a time period range, the resulting price to rent the artwork will be inaccurate. The present invention resolves this issue by updating the prices according to the user's selection of a particular rental time period: "… wherein the first and second sliders are movable to adjust the total possession period, such that when the first and second sliders are moved, prices within the subset of prices are adjusted in real-time based on the adjusted total possession period." Accordingly, applicant respectfully submits the present invention represents "significantly more" insofar as it produces an improvement to "any other technology or technical field;" e.g., ensuring accurate pricing within a GUI so that rental orders are not entered at incorrect or changed prices (similar to Trading Techs, Int'l).” Remarks p.11, citing Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential).
This argument is not persuasive because it relies entirely on Trading Techs and only on the pricing element. Perhaps that is the only comparison possible, but the operative facts in Trading Techs involved the stabilization of pricing in the interface, and allowing the user to enter a specific price that may not be the currently displayed price, to address the prior art risk of the price changing as the user was selecting the trade on the interface, and thus inadvertently trading at the changed price. Applicant makes a valiant effort to compare the presently claimed subject matter but there really is no comparison other than that they both involve prices (a large number of prior art disclosures, both eligible and ineligible, include price in an interface). Trading Techs was forced to solve the changing price problem because it operated in an environment where the traded items were fungible and of high liquidity, and their price changed frequently and independently of any action by the user or the interface provider. The present environment involves illiquid, nonfungible items, with prices that would only change during the user’s interaction as a result of intentional choices made by the user itself, as explained in applicant’s argument. The present claims merely show the price that results from options selected by the user, a generic feature in ecommerce interfaces. While it is true that “unless the GUI is itself updated according to a user's selection of a time period range, the resulting price to rent the artwork will be inaccurate,” this inaccuracy would represent a serious defect rendering the present system unusable for its intended purpose, not a prior art technical problem to be solved. Simply avoiding a defect that is not present in any existing system is not a technical solution.
Applicant argues
“correcting or preventing defects using a specific technical mechanism constitutes a patent-eligible improvement. To maintain accurate pricing alignment when a user continuous drags end points, the claimed invention must remap GUI positions to exact discrete time segments, recomputes pricing for the changed segments, and update the displayed prices in real time without lag or inconstancy. This is a precisely a technical mechanism that prevents the defect, therefore the claimed invention provides an engineered solution to a specific interface and processing problem of not preventing selection of outdated prices during user interaction with the GUI.” Remarks pp.11-12.
The ability to perform in accord with this argument is not a solution because it is generic in prior art computer systems. None of it is described in the specification, nor is it evident from the claims. It is evident that applicant did not perceive this solution, nor perceive it as a solution, prior to this response. This is essentially an argument that by creating a system that is fit for its intended purpose applicant solves the problem of failing to create a system fit for its intended purpose. This is not a persuasive argument.
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 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 2-9 are directed to a process and claims 10-17 are directed to a machine. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“determining a value for portfolios comprising at least one work of digital art having one or more owners; determining a quantity of ownership of the one or more owners in each of the portfolios, wherein the quantity of ownership is based on a ratio of the values of the portfolios having the one or more owners to a combined value of the portfolios; and responsive to a request by one of the one or more owners to possess a first work of digital art of the at least one work of digital art, displaying a graphical user interface (GUI) for facilitating possession of the first work of digital art, wherein the GUI includes: a first display area indicating identification of the one of the one or more owners, a second display area including icons interactable to select the first work of digital art for possession from among two or more works of digital art, a third display area including a plurality of dates arranged in timewise order, in which each date of the plurality of dates indicates a preset possession period; a fourth display area including prices which are spatially aligned to the plurality of dates arranged in timewise order, and at least two sliders which intersect the third and fourth display areas, such that a first slider indicates a first preset possession period, a second slider indicates a second preset possession period, and a total possession period for the first work of digital art is defined by a time period spanning the first and second preset possession periods along with any intervening possession periods within the third display, wherein for each possession period contained within a gap between the two sliders, a subset of prices is also selected based on spatial alignment of the prices to the plurality of dates, and wherein the first and second sliders are movable to adjust the total possession period, such that when the first and second sliders are moved, prices within the subset of prices are adjusted in real-time based on the adjusted total possession period, thereby preventing selection of outdated prices during user interaction with the GUI.” Claim 2.
An analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. There are no additional elements in present claims 2-9, and therefore no additional elements available to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element in claims 10-17 is at least one processor. The memory is not an additional element because it is not identified as non-transitory and because the claim merely recites that the memory stores instructions that are executable by the processor. It does not indicate that the memory is capable of operating together with the processor or that the processor executes the instructions by interacting with the claimed memory. As a result, while the processor is sufficient to establish the claim as directed to a statutory apparatus, the claim does not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the stored instructions and the processor that would permit the functionality of the instructions to be realized. In the interests of compact prosecution the analysis will continue based on the assumption that the memory is non-transitory and that the stored instructions are executed by the processor. In that event, the at least one processor of claims 10-17 would all alone be broadly and generally recited as performing all steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities. This additional elements would not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it would amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The claims are otherwise entirely a recitation of abstract ideas. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract recitations of intended results of steps with no indication of any particular functional acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. There are no additional elements to improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, to apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, or to transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims fail even to apply or use the judicial exception in a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. The method is described only by way of the abstractly recited outcomes of activities that are not performed by any device or other technology, and the apparatus merely recites a generic processor that “applies it.”
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way and fail even to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have therefore not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more, even where there is a recitation of any such computers or components. Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The elements are recited at a high level of generality, merely describe implementing abstract ideas, and fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology (there is no surrounding technology). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to such a problem. The method claimed is a series of steps taken to practice an entrepreneurial activity. This conclusion is supported by applicant's disclosure, which elaborates upon the performance of the presently claimed method at length by describing the abstract ideas without identifying any technical problem and without offering a technical solution to any such problem. The claimed subject matter merely implements a business plan, rather than solving a problem. The claimed invention is patent ineligible because the innovative aspect (if there is one) is an entrepreneurial rather than a technological one. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3245; 177 L. Ed. 2d 792, 822; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5521, 73; 95 U.S.P.Q.20 (BNA) 1001 (2010) (citing Merges, Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, 14 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 577, 585 (1999)); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (“A rule holding that claims are impermissibly abstract if they are directed to an entrepreneurial objective, such as methods for increasing revenue, minimizing economic risk, or structuring commercial transactions, rather than a technological one, would comport with the guidance provided in both Alice and Bilski.” Mayer, J, concurring).
Dependent claims 3-9 and 11-17 do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas further describing the calculations, identification, and manipulation, of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite abstract ideas without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Claims 2-17 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Independent claims 2 and 10 recite, inter alia,
“displaying a graphical user interface (GUI) for facilitating possession of the first work of digital art, wherein the GUI includes: …; a fourth display area including prices which are spatially aligned to the plurality of dates arranged in timewise order, and at least two sliders which intersect the third and fourth display areas, such that a first slider indicates a first preset possession period, a second slider indicates a second preset possession period, and a total possession period for the first work of digital art is defined by a time period spanning the first and second preset possession periods along with any intervening possession periods within the third display, wherein for each possession period contained within a gap between the two sliders, a subset of prices is also selected based on spatial alignment of the prices to the plurality of dates, and wherein the first and second sliders are movable to adjust the total possession period, such that when the first and second sliders are moved, prices within the subset of prices are adjusted in real-time based on the adjusted total possession period, thereby preventing selection of outdated prices during user interaction with the GUI.” Claim 2.
The most closely applicable Patent references are Saigh et al. (Paper No. 20240930; Pub. No. US 2008/0120216 A1), Wieder (Paper No. 20240930; Patent No.: US 10,970,368 B1), Chan et al. (Paper No. 20260204; Pub. No.: US 2002/0073015 A1), KLEINBAUM et al. (Paper No. 20260204; International Publication Number WO 2008/079196 A1), Vlahoplus et al. (Paper No. 20260204; Patent No.: US 7,130,825 B2), and Roberts et al. (Paper No. 20260204; Pub. No.: US 2004/0006525 A).
Claims 2-17 were previously rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Saigh. As detailed in the office action mailed February 11, 2026, the amendment and remarks filed December 17, 2025, overcame this ground of rejection. Saigh does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination, i.e., at least the limitations identified above.
Wieder teaches distributing usage rights to authorized users and includes extensive teaching of the use of sliders to make user selections in an interface but does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
Chan teaches selection of a rental asset and interval of rental but its interface is confined to selection of available intervals rather than sliding selection of users desired interval. See ¶0043 “FIG.4H also has a "Check Available Intervals" button 205 similar to that for FIG. 4B. FIG. 4I displays a list of available rental intervals in response to the member clicking on the "Check Available Intervals" button. In the specific example of the preferred embodiment, the member decides to rent one interval 208 from the list of rental interval.” Chan teaches selection of a rental asset and interval of rental but its interface is confined to selection of available intervals rather than sliding selection of users’ desired interval. It does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
KLEINBAUM teaches a similar art based investment fund, including various revenue generating embodiments such as using the art as collateral for a loan, renting the artwork, and borrowing the artwork for generating revenue such as by renting the artwork. KLEINBAUM however does not disclose user interfaces such as the one presently claimed, and does not teach allowing a user to select varying periods of time for possession of the artwork using multiple sliders in an interface. KLEINBAUM therefore does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
Vlahoplus teaches ownership of fractional shares in property based commodities, and includes an interface allowing selection of rental period of a property. See figs. 37C, 48F, 29A. Vlahoplus however does not disclose user interfaces including sliders for the user to adjust to its own preferred time periods such as the one presently claimed, and does not teach allowing a user to select varying periods of time for possession of artwork. Vlahoplus therefore does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
Roberts teaches stock shares in a property wherein stockholding includes the right to use the property for a period of time and the use includes potentially renting the property to others, but does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
Burrow (Paper No. 20260204; Non-patent literature document listed as item U on attached form PTO-892) teaches investment in artworks and the difficulty of maintaining possession of the physical work leading most investors to loan the items to galleries. Burrow does not however, alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
In light of the above and examiner’s overall review of the prior art it is examiner’s conclusion that the body of prior art currently known to the examiner does not alone or in combination disclose, anticipate, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the above noted features of the present method. It should be noted that this conclusion is based on the presence of all claimed features as they operate in conjunction rather than solely on any one feature or isolated group of features.
The most relevant applicable and nonduplicative prior art having thus been introduced, addressed, and distinguished, by the above and by amendment and argument during the course of prosecution, it is examiner’s position that together with the above the record is clear with regard to the reasons for allowability of the claimed invention over the prior 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 ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights