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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-17, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12 and 13 recite one or more non-transitory computer-readable media.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of receiving bids for an item/invoice from bidders. This idea is described by the following steps:
maintaining an account for a customer and/or a supplier, and for each of a plurality of bidders;
receiving a request to submit an invoice for auction, wherein one of the customer or supplier is a responsible party;
collecting and storing an identity of the supplier for the invoice, an identity of the customer for the invoice, an amount of the invoice, and a payment due date for the invoice;
generating a first score that represents a likelihood that the responsible party will default on an auctioned invoice and a second score that represents a likelihood of collection from the responsible party on a defaulted auctioned invoice;
for each respective bidder of one or more bidders from the plurality of bidders, displaying a graph having a first axis corresponding to the likelihood that the responsible party will default on an auctioned invoice and a second axis corresponding to the likelihood of collection from the responsible party on a defaulted auctioned invoice, and displaying an indicia at a location in the graph correspond to the first score and the second score; and
receiving from at least one bidder of the one or more bidders a bid for the invoice.
Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of receiving bids for an item/invoice from bidders. This idea is described by the following steps:
maintaining an account for a customer and/or a supplier, and for each of a plurality of bidders;
receiving a request to submit an invoice for auction;
collecting and storing an identity of the supplier for the invoice, an identity of the customer for the invoice, an amount of the invoice, and a payment due date for the invoice;
generating a first score that represents a likelihood that the customer will fulfill payment on an auctioned invoice and a second score that represents a likelihood that the supplier will fulfill payment on the auctioned invoice;
for each respective bidder of one or more bidders from the plurality of bidders, displaying a graph having a first axis corresponding to the likelihood that the customer will fulfil payment on the auctioned invoice and a second axis corresponding to the likelihood that the supplier will fulfil payment on the auctioned invoice, and displaying an indicia at a location in the graph correspond to the first score and the second score; and
receive from at least one bidder of the one or more bidders a bid for the invoice.
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of receiving bids for an item/invoice from bidders. This idea is described by the following steps:
maintaining an account for a customer and/or a supplier, and for each of a plurality of bidders;
receiving a request to submit an invoice for auction;
collecting and storing an identity of the supplier for the invoice, an identity of the customer for the invoice, an amount of the invoice, and a payment due date for the invoice;
generating a first score that represents a likelihood that the supplier will default on an auctioned invoice, a second score that represents a likelihood of collection from the supplier on a defaulted auctioned invoice, and a third score that represents a financial strength of the customer;
generating a combined risk level score from a calculated combination of the first score, the second score, and the third score;
for each respective bidder of one or more bidders from the plurality of bidders, displaying the combined risk level score; and
receiving from at least one bidder of the one or more bidders a bid for the invoice.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., conducting auctions).
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1, 12 and 13 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1, 12 and 13 recite one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, computer system. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraph 013) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 1, 12 and 13 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 12 and 13 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, 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 MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of: maintain at least one data store defining a respective account for a customer and/or a supplier, and for each of a plurality of bidders; receive a request to submit an invoice for auction, wherein one of the customer or supplier is a responsible party; collect and store as data an identity of the supplier for the invoice, an identity of the customer for the invoice, an amount of the invoice, and a payment due date for the invoice; generate a first score that represents a likelihood that the responsible party will default on an auctioned invoice and a second score that represents a likelihood of collection from the responsible party on a defaulted auctioned invoice; for each respective bidder of one or more bidders from the plurality of bidders, causing a display of a bidder computer system of the respective bidder to display a graph having a first axis corresponding to the likelihood that the responsible party will default on an auctioned invoice and a second axis corresponding to the likelihood of collection from the responsible party on a defaulted auctioned invoice, and display an indicia at a location in the graph correspond to the first score and the second score; and receive from at least one bidder of the one or more bidders a bid for the invoice.
Regarding claim 12
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of: maintaining at least one data store defining a respective account for a customer and/or a supplier, and for each of a plurality of bidders; receiving a request to submit an invoice for auction; collecting and storing as data an identity of the supplier for the invoice, an identity of the customer for the invoice, an amount of the invoice, and a payment due date for the invoice; generating a first score that represents a likelihood that the customer will fulfill payment on an auctioned invoice and a second score that represents a likelihood that the supplier will fulfill payment on the auctioned invoice; for each respective bidder of one or more bidders from the plurality of bidders, causing a display of a bidder computer system of the respective bidder to displaying a graph having a first axis corresponding to the likelihood that the customer will fulfil payment on the auctioned invoice and a second axis corresponding to the likelihood that the supplier will fulfil payment on the auctioned invoice, and displaying an indicia at a location in the graph correspond to the first score and the second score; and receiving from at least one bidder of the one or more bidders a bid for the invoice.
Regarding claim 13
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of: maintaining at least one data store defining a respective account for a customer and/or a supplier, and for each of a plurality of bidders; receiving a request to submit an invoice for auction; collecting and storing as data an identity of the supplier for the invoice, an identity of the customer for the invoice, an amount of the invoice, and a payment due date for the invoice; generating a first score that represents a likelihood that the supplier will default on an auctioned invoice, a second score that represents a likelihood of collection from the supplier on a defaulted auctioned invoice, and a third score that represents a financial strength of the customer; generate a combined risk level score from a calculated combination of the first score, the second score, and the third score; for each respective bidder of one or more bidders from the plurality of bidders, causing a display of a bidder computer system of the respective bidder to display the combined risk level score; and receiving from at least one bidder of the one or more bidders a bid for the invoice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200118207 to Jovanovic discloses an apparatus and method to facilitate sale of an invoice from a seller to a buyer. In order to provide the buyer with risk factoring information, i.e., rating score, for the seller and the payer, in at least one embodiment the Altman Z-score calculation formula is used as a basis to calculate such for the seller and the payer. In at least some embodiments, these two individually calculated scores for the seller and the payer are thereafter used to calculate a combined score that is presented to the buyer as a basis for making an informed decision on whether to buy the invoice at a discount. Machine Learning algorithms are used to improve risk calculation and assessment of the seller and the payer by finding more measuring points and related weights. Such an extended or proprietary formula includes a seller score and a payer score based on data available on the local database, private blockchain, public blockchain, and third-party data providers (e.g. corporate intelligence sources), with defaulted invoices and delays on payment of the invoices also being adding to the scoring of the seller, which is based on seller defaults and seller delays in paying invoices.
US 20120116908 to Dayal et al. discloses systems and method of facilitating an electronic auction of prepayment of an invoice. One method includes a supplier and a buyer approving the invoice with definite terms. The supplier electronically submits the invoice with proposed prepayment terms to an exchange platform. The exchange platform provides an electronic auction of the invoice with proposed prepayment terms to a plurality of bidders and receiving a bid from at least one of the plurality of bidders. Payment of the invoice between the winning bidder and the supplier is electronically facilitated if a winning bid is received.
US 20190114683 to Mundhra et al. discloses a system and method to determine and accept discount for a plurality of invoices, has been described. Initially, a vendor request is received to initiate a bidding session to place a bid for earlier processing of the plurality of pending invoices by a consumer. Based on the received vendor request, a discount is determined for each of the plurality of invoices based on at least one of a vendor information, the consumer information, and a bidding pattern in previous session.
US 20220076330 to Hopkins discloses a method and system for generating a real-time risk score associated with financing of an invoice based on real-time transaction data. FIGS. 7A-7C illustrate interfaces for viewing invoices and baskets of invoices and bidding on invoices, along with scores corresponding to buyers, sellers, and overall risk.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights