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 .
Priority
Applicant claims continuation priority to U.S. Nonprovisional Application No. No. 14/967,301, filed on Dec. 12, 2015, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/246,987, filed on October 27, 2015.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been submitted.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s claims, filed 5/17/2024, have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…portion of committed amount;” in line 20 and should recite “…portion of committed amount; and”. Claims 2-15 inherit the objections of claim 1.
Claims 1 and 16 recites the limitation "the winning payment amount" in lines 22 and 17, respectively, and should recite “[[the]]a winning payment amount”. Claims 2-15 and 17-20 inherit the objections of claims 1 and 16.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the additional data” in line 1 and should recite “[[the]] additional data”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the additional data” in line 1 and should recite “[[the]] additional data”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the additional data” in line 1 and should recite “[[the]] additional data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 119-147 of copending Application No. 14/967,301 (reference application), claims 1-4, 7-13, 15, 40-57 of copending Application No. 15/717,594 (reference application), and claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/227,240 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the present application are broader than and anticipated by claims 1, 119-147 of copending Application No. 14/967,301 (reference application), claims 1-20 of the present application are broader than and anticipated by claims 1-4, 7-13, 15, 40-57 of copending Application No. 15/717,594 (reference application), and claims 1-20 of the present application are broader than and anticipated by claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/227,240 (reference application).
18/666,810 (present application)
14/967,301 (reference application)
15/717,594 (reference application)
18/227,240 (reference application)
1. A computer-implemented system for an online sealed bid auction, comprising: an auction server in communication with one or more remote computing devices associated with one or more remote bidders via a network, wherein the server includes at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with computer-readable instructions stored therein to remotely perform the online sealed bid auction based on one or more sets of predetermined rules, and a processor instructed to execute the computer-readable instructions to:
transfer for display at least a portion of data related to an auction subject for the online sealed bid auction on the one or more remote computing devices associated with the one or more remote bidders;
receive one or more sets of bid data from the one or more remote computing devices, respectively, wherein each of the one or more sets of bid data comprises a bid amount;
automatically transfer for display, on the one or more remote computing devices, a first representation of the online sealed bid auction comprising one or more different identifiers corresponding to the one or more sets of bid data, respectively;
responsive to a closing time of the online sealed bid auction:
determine a highest bid amount as the winning bid amount for a winning bidder and a second highest bid amount based on the one or more sets of bid data; and
automatically recalculate the winning bid amount for the winning bidder based on at least a portion of data related to the highest bid amount, the second highest bid amount, and at least a portion of committed amount; and
transfer for display, on the one or more remote computing devices, a second representation of the online sealed bid auction comprising data related to a winning payment amount or a winning bid amount.
1. A computer-implemented system for an online sealed bid auction, comprising: an auction server in communication with one or more remote computing devices associated with one or more remote bidders via a network, wherein the server includes at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with computer-readable | instructions stored therein to remotely perform the online sealed bid auction based on one or more sets of predetermined rules, and a processor instructed to execute the computer- readable instructions to:
transfer for display at least a portion of data related to an auction subject for the online sealed bid auction on the one or more remote computing devices associated with the one or more remote bidders;
receive one or more sets of bid data from the one or more remote computing devices, respectively, wherein each of the one or more sets of bid data comprises a bid amount;
receive one or more sets of commitment data, wherein each set of commitment data comprises a commitment to pay a committed amount for adjusting a winning bid amount upon winning the online sealed bid auction;
automatically store the one or more sets of bid data and the one or more sets of commitment data on the server;
automatically transfer for display, on the one or more remote computing devices, a first representation of the online sealed bid auction comprising one or more different identifiers corresponding to the one or more sets of bid data, respectively; |
responsive to a closing time of the online sealed bid auction:
determine a highest bid amount as the winning bid amount for a winning bidder and a second highest bid amount based on the one or more sets of bid data; and
responsive to the winning bid amount being associated with at least one of the one or more sets of commitment data comprising a respective committed amount:
automatically re-calculate the winning payment bid amount for the winning bidder based on at least a portion of data related to the highest bid amount, the second highest bid amount, and the respective committed amount;
transfer for display, on the one or more remote computing devices, a second representation of the online sealed bid auction comprising data related to the winning payment amount or the winning bid amount; and
transfer for display, on the one or more remote computing devices, additional data related to allocation of at least a portion of the respective committed amount to the one or more remote bidders or a vendor.
1. A computer-implemented system for an online sealed bid reverse auction, comprising: an auction server in communication with one or more remote computing devices associated with one or more remote bidders via a network, wherein the auction server includes at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with computer-readable instructions stored therein to remotely perform the online sealed bid reverse auction based on one or more sets of predetermined rules, and a processor instructed to execute the computer-readable instructions to:
transfer for display on the one or more remote computing devices, at least a portion of data related to an auction subject for the online sealed bid reverse auction;
receive one or more sets of bid data from the one or more remote computing devices, wherein each of the one or more sets of bid data comprises a bid amount:
receive one or more sets of commitment data, wherein each set of commitment data comprises a commitment to pay a committed amount for adjusting a winning bid amount upon winning the online sealed bid reverse auction;
store the one or more sets of bid data and the one or more sets of commitment data on the server;
transfer for display on the one or more remote computing devices, a first representation of the online sealed bid reverse auction comprising one or more different identifiers corresponding to the one or more sets of bid data, respectively; and
responsive to a closing of the online sealed bid reverse auction:
determine the winning bid amount for a winning bidder based on a first predetermined ranking;
identify, based on a second predetermined ranking, a second bid amount higher than the winning bid amount;
responsive to the winning bid amount being associated with at least one of the one or more sets of commitment data comprising a respective committed amount:
automatically re-calculate the winning bid amount to be paid to the winning bidder for providing the auction subject based on at least a portion of data related to the winning bid amount, the second bid amount, and the respective committed amount;
transfer for display on the one or more remote computing devices, a second representation of the online sealed bid reverse auction comprising data related to the winning bid amount; and
transfer for display on the one or more remote computing devices, additional data related to allocation of at least a portion of the respective committed amount to the one or more bidders.
1. A computer-implemented system for conducting a combined auction including a sealed bid online auction and an open bid offline auction performed in an electronic platform, the system comprising:
an auction server in communication with one or more remote computing devices associated with one or more remote bidders via a network, to one or more remote bidder computing devices associated with one or more bidders for a combined auction subject of the sealed bid online auction, wherein the server includes at least one non-transitory computer- readable storage medium with computer-readable instructions stored therein to remotely perform the sealed bid online auction based on one or more sets of predetermined rules, a database, and a processor for executing said computer-readable instructions to:
list the auction subject in the combined auction:
receive, from a plurality of bidders via a plurality of remote bidder computing devices, one or more sealed bids for one or more corresponding bid amounts respectively relating to the auction subject of the sealed bid online auction;
receive one or more open bid amounts relating to the auction subject from one or more additional bidders in the open bid offline auction;
assign a different identifier to each of the one or more bids;
receive one or more sets of commitment data, wherein each set of commitment data comprises a commitment to pay a committed amount for adjusting at least a part of a winning payment amount upon winning the auction;
transmit, during the auction, to the plurality of the remote bidder computing devices, a first representation of the auction including each different identifier, wherein at least one of the plurality remote bidder computing devices displays at least a portion of the first representation;
identify a winning bid amount and a second-rank bid amount next to the winning bid amount from the auction;
calculate the winning payment amount based on at least the winning bid amount and an adjustment amount, wherein the adjustment amount is computed based on at least a portion of the winning bid and the second-rank bid amount; and
transmit, upon a close of the sealed bid online auction, to at least a bidder computing device associated with the plurality of remote bidder computing devices, a second representation of the auction, wherein the second representation includes at least a portion of the winning payment amount or winning bid amount.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-15, are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claims 16-20, are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 16, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
an sealed bid auction, comprising:
transferring for display, associated with one or more bidders, respectively, at least a portion of data related to an auction subject for the sealed bid auction;
receiving, one or more sets of bid data, respectively, wherein each of the one or more sets of bid data comprises a bid amount;
automatically transferring for display, a first representation of the sealed bid auction comprising one or more different identifiers corresponding to the one or more sets of bid data, respectively;
responsive to a closing time of the sealed bid auction:
determining a highest bid amount as the winning bid amount for a winning bidder and a second highest bid amount based on the one or more sets of bid data; and
automatically re-calculating the winning bid amount for the winning bidder based on at least a portion of data related to the highest bid amount, the second highest bid amount, and at least a portion of commitment amount; and
transferring for display, a second representation of the auction comprising data related to a winning payment amount or the winning bid amount.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 16 are certain methods of organizing human activity because sealed bid auctions is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining” information and “re-calculating” information is that those steps 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.
Thus, claim 16 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 16. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claim 1 as described above for independent claim 16.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, independent claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer-implemented system for an online sealed bid auction, comprising:
an auction server in communication with one or more remote computing devices associated with one or more remote bidders via a network, wherein the server includes at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with computer-readable instructions stored therein to remotely perform the online sealed bid auction based on one or more sets of predetermined rules, and a processor instructed to execute the computer-readable instructions to:
transfer for display at least a portion of data related to an auction subject for the online sealed bid auction on the one or more remote computing devices associated with the one or more remote bidders;
receive one or more sets of bid data from the one or more remote computing devices, respectively, wherein each of the one or more sets of bid data comprises a bid amount;
automatically transfer for display, on the one or more remote computing devices, a first representation of the online sealed bid auction comprising one or more different identifiers corresponding to the one or more sets of bid data, respectively;
responsive to a closing time of the online sealed bid auction:
determine a highest bid amount as the winning bid amount for a winning bidder and a second highest bid amount based on the one or more sets of bid data; and
automatically recalculate the winning bid amount for the winning bidder based on at least a portion of data related to the highest bid amount, the second highest bid amount, and at least a portion of committed amount; and
transfer for display, on the one or more remote computing devices, a second representation of the online sealed bid auction comprising data related to a winning payment amount or the winning bid amount.
Independent claim 16 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
an online sealed bid auction, comprising:
transferring for display, on one or more computing devices associated with one or more bidders, respectively, at least a portion of data related to an auction subject for the online sealed bid auction;
receiving, by a server, one or more sets of bid data from the one or more computing devices, respectively, wherein each of the one or more sets of bid data comprises a bid amount;
automatically transferring for display, on the one or more computing devices, a first representation of the online sealed bid auction comprising one or more different identifiers corresponding to the one or more sets of bid data, respectively;
responsive to a closing time of the online sealed bid auction:
determining a highest bid amount as the winning bid amount for a winning bidder and a second highest bid amount based on the one or more sets of bid data; and
automatically re-calculating the winning bid amount for the winning bidder based on at least a portion of data related to the highest bid amount, the second highest bid amount, and at least a portion of commitment amount; and
transferring for display, on the one or more computing devices, a second representation of the auction comprising data related to a winning payment amount or the winning bid amount.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claims 1 and 16 are recited 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 the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1A, 3, 4; paragraphs [0066], [0079]-[0085]), The Examiner underscores that these limitations are being performed by a generic processor and merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
In addition to the above, the recited receiving and transmitting/displaying steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1 and 16 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 1 and 16, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1 and 16 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). 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 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1 and 16 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1 and 16 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1 and 16 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim(s) 2-15 and 17-20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 merely further define the abstract limitations of claims 1 and 16 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 16. Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims2-15 and 17-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michlitsch et. al. (US 2010/0325008 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Michlitsch et al., hereinafter Michlitsch, discloses a computer-implemented system for an online sealed bid auction (abstract), comprising:
an auction server in communication with one or more remote computing devices associated with one or more remote bidders via a network, wherein the server includes at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with computer-readable instructions stored therein to remotely perform the online sealed bid auction based on one or more sets of predetermined rules, and a processor instructed to execute the computer-readable instructions (Fig. 6; ¶¶0010-0014, ¶0035, and ¶¶0103-0105) to:
transfer for display at least a portion of data related to an auction subject for the online sealed bid auction on the one or more remote computing devices associated with the one or more remote bidders (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0010-0012 [allows a server computer system (i.e., Web server or Web site) to send graphical Web pages of information to a remote client computer system. The remote client computer system can then display the Web pages], ¶¶0053-0055 [After requisite information has been obtained from the seller, sealed bids are solicited from bidders for the duration of the auction, as in Step 106.] in view of ¶¶0103-0105);
receive one or more sets of bid data from the one or more remote computing devices, respectively, wherein each of the one or more sets of bid data comprises a bid amount (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0056 [When a bidder submits a sealed bid, a series of checks are conducted to determine whether the sealed bid is valid and will be entered. In Step 108, if a minimum bid has been specified, it is determined whether the bidder's sealed bid is at least equal to the minimum bid. In Step 110, it is determined whether the sealed bid is at least equal to the sealed reserve price. In Step 112, it is determined whether the sealed bid exceeds all previous sealed bids submitted by the bidder.]);
automatically transfer for display, on the one or more remote computing devices, a first representation of the online sealed bid auction comprising one or more different identifiers corresponding to the one or more sets of bid data, respectively (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0057 [If a sealed bid passes all the checks of Steps 108-112 (i.e., the sealed bid is at least equal to the optional minimum bid and to the sealed reserve price, and the sealed bid exceeds all previous sealed bids submitted by the bidder), then the sealed bid is entered, as in Step 114. If, however, the sealed bid fails at least one of the checks of Steps 108-112, the sealed bid is not entered and the bidder optionally is informed why the sealed bid is defective, as in Step 116] in view of ¶0034 [The number of bidders having entered sealed bids during a SealedSecond™ auction optionally may be publicly disclosed during or after completion of the auction.], ¶¶0010-0012, and ¶¶0103-0105);
responsive to a closing time of the online sealed bid auction (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0059-0061 [At expiration of the auction duration…):
determine a highest bid amount as the winning bid amount for a winning bidder and a second highest bid amount based on the one or more sets of bid data (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0059-0061 [At expiration of the auction duration, it is determined in Step 118 whether at least two sealed bids have been entered that are at least equal to the sealed reserve price… If, in Step 118, it is determined that at least two sealed bids at least equal the sealed reserve price have not been entered, then it is determined whether one sealed bid at least equal to the sealed reserve price has been entered, as in Step 122… If yes, it is determined whether the high bidder (the only bidder having entered a sealed bid at least equal to the sealed reserve price) has opted to pay the sealed reserve price (or, optionally, one bid increment more than the sealed reserve price) in this scenario, as in Step 126… If yes, the high bidder is established as the buyer of the auctioned item that wins the auction]); and
automatically recalculate the winning bid amount for the winning bidder based on at least a portion of data related to the highest bid amount, the second highest bid amount, and at least a portion of committed amount (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0059-0061 [the high bidder is established as the buyer of the auctioned item that wins the auction, and the value of the auctioned item is established as the sealed reserve price, as in Step 128. Optionally, Step 128 may be modified such that the value of the auctioned item is established as one bid increment more than the sealed reserve price]; Examiner notes reserve price is comparable to committed amount and the winning bid amount is calculated based on the highest bid amount being higher than the reserve price and the second highest bid amount being lower than the reserve price);
transfer for display, on the one or more remote computing devices, a second representation of the online sealed bid auction comprising data related to a winning payment amount or the winning bid amount (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0062-0064 [The high bidder's decision whether to accept the sealed reserve price (or, optionally, one bid increment more than the sealed reserve price) as the value in that scenario may comprise opting in, opting out or being informed. Opting in may comprise informed consent, i.e., having the high bidder actively accept the sealed reserve price (or, optionally, one bid increment more than the sealed reserve price) as the value in that scenario… The high bidder's decision may be determined… at expiration of the auction duration in the circumstance where the high bidder is the only high bid at least equal to the sealed reserve price. ] in view of ¶¶0010-0012, and ¶¶0103-0105).
Regarding claim 2, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further instructed to execute the computer-readable instructions to:
obtain each of the one or more sets of predetermined rules (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0053-0054 [reserve price and minimum bid] and ¶0034 [minimum number of bidders], ¶0087);
define one or more criteria of the one or more sets of predetermined rules corresponding to one or more functions of the system (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0034, ¶¶0053-0054, ¶0087); and
perform the auction remotely based on the one or more sets of predetermined rules (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0034, ¶¶0053-0054, ¶0087 in view of ¶¶0010-0012, and ¶¶0103-0105).
Regarding claim 3, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the portion of data related to the auction subject comprises at least one of:
a description of the auction subject (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0053-0055 [descriptive information about the auctioned item and sets a sealed reserve price for the auctioned item. The reserve price is the minimum amount that the seller is willing to accept for the auctioned item. The seller optionally also may determine the duration of the SealedSecond™ auction and/or the bid increment.]);
a corresponding auction schedule comprising at least the closing time for the auction (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0053-0055);
a starting price for the auction subject (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0053-0055); or
the one or more sets of predetermined rules for the auction (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0053-0055), wherein the one or more sets of bid data correspond to one or more sealed bids, and at least one bid amount is equal to or higher than the starting price (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0059-0061).
Regarding claim 4, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sets of bid data comprise one or more sealed bids with the one or more respective bid amounts (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0059-0061).
Regarding claim 5, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 4, wherein the processor is further instructed to execute the computer-readable instructions to:
recognize, from each of the one or more bidders, only one valid bid and one corresponding bid amount (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0067-0068 [Once entered, sealed bids preferably cannot be reduced or withdrawn. When a bidder submits a sealed bid, a series of checks are conducted to determine whether the sealed bid is valid and will be entered.]).
Regarding claim 6, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein each set of commitment data is indicative of one or more inputs to a respective computing device by a respective bidder to make the commitment (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0062-0064 in view of ¶¶0010-0014, ¶0035 [Bidders enter their sealed bids and communicate with the server computer system via client computer systems], and ¶¶0103-0105).
Regarding claim 7, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further instructed to execute the computer-readable instructions to: calculate at least the portion of committed amount based on at least a predetermined percentage of the winning bid amount (¶0061 [at least one sealed bid equal to or higher than sealed reserve price (or one bid increment more than the sealed reserve price)]).
Regarding claim 8, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the winning payment amount is calculated at least by adding the second highest bid amount and a predetermined percentage of a difference between the winning bid amount and the second highest bid amount (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0061; Examiner notes one bid increment more than the sealed reserve price is comparable to a predetmined percentage of a difference between winning bid amount and the reserve price (i.e., second highest bid) in view of ¶0028).
Regarding claim 9, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further instructed to execute the computer-readable instructions to:
display a portion of data related to the winning payment amount, wherein the winning payment amount is higher or lower than the winning bid amount (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0062-0064 in view of ¶¶0010-0014, ¶0035, and ¶¶0103-0105).
Regarding claim 10, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further instructed to execute the computer-readable instructions to:
calculate the winning payment amount based on the one or more sets of predetermined rules, wherein the winning payment amount is at least a sum of:
(i) at least the portion of the committed amount associated with the winning bid amount;
(ii) the second highest bid amount of the auction; and
(iii) a predetermined percentage of a difference between the winning bid amount and the second highest bid amount (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0061; Examiner notes one bid increment more than the sealed reserve price is comparable to a predetmined percentage of a difference between winning bid amount and the reserve price (i.e., second highest bid) in view of ¶0028).
Regarding claim 11, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further instructed to execute the computer-readable instructions to:
responsive to the auction having a sole bidder, use a starting price for the auction subject as the second highest bid amount (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0046 and ¶¶0061-0064).
Regarding claim 12, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein additional data is related to allocation of a second portion of the committed amount to a vendor (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0046).
Regarding claim 13, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein additional data is related to allocation of an entire amount of the committed amount to the vendor and the one or more bidders (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0046).
Regarding claim 15, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, further comprising:
processing each set of bid data according to one or more preset rules to determine whether each set of bid data is accepted or rejected (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0056 [When a bidder submits a sealed bid, a series of checks are conducted to determine whether the sealed bid is valid and will be entered. In Step 108, if a minimum bid has been specified, it is determined whether the bidder's sealed bid is at least equal to the minimum bid.]);
responsive to a set of bid data being rejected not storing the set of rejected bid data (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0056-0057 [If, however, the sealed bid fails at least one of the checks of Steps 108-112, the sealed bid is not entered and the bidder optionally is informed why the sealed bid is defective, as in Step 116]); and
responsive to a set of bid data being accepted, storing the accepted set of bid data on the auction server (Fig. 1A-6; ¶¶0056-0057 [If a sealed bid passes all the checks of Steps 108-112 (i.e., the sealed bid is at least equal to the optional minimum bid and to the sealed reserve price, and the sealed bid exceeds all previous sealed bids submitted by the bidder), then the sealed bid is entered, as in Step 114.] in view of ¶0105 [stored as data in the Database 604 via the Server Engine 602 in accordance with the Instructions]).
Regarding claims 16-20, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 1-3, 10, and 15, respectively, except claims 1-3, 10, and 15 are directed to a machine while claims 16-20 are directed to a process. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-3, 10, and 15, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 1-3, 10, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michlitsch in view of Lee (US 2018/0315118 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Michlitsch discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein additional data is related to allocation of at least a portion of the committed amount (Fig. 1A-6; ¶0046). Michlitsch does not explicitly disclose wherein additional data is related to allocation of at least a portion of the committed amount to a bidder of the second highest bid amount. However, in the field of auctions (abstract, ¶¶0065-0066), Lee teaches an a sales transaction system that, when a successful bidder is selected and a sale is performed with the successful bidder, the system distributes a part of the fees to the bidders that were unsuccessful (Fig. 6; ¶0083, ¶0106). The step of Lee is applicable to the system of Michlitsch as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to buying and selling items via auction over the Internet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the additional data as taught by Michlitsch with data related to the allocation of fees to unsuccessful bidders as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Michlitsch in order to provide refunds to unsuccessful bidders (¶0083, ¶0106).
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited Non Patent Literature “The High Price of Internet Keyword Auctions” discloses google and yahoo earn revenues by charging bidders, rather than the amount they’ve bid, advertising bidders are charged only a penny more per click than the next lowest bid in order for participants to bid truthfully.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, Jeff 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688