DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 11/13/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Related Application(s) – Prior Art of Record
3. The instant application is a continuation application (CON) of parent application 17/080,026 (now USPN 12,062,087), which is itself a CON of application 12/262,477 (now USPN 10,817,932). In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A.2 and §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the prior art cited in the above parent application has been considered, and all documents cited or considered ‘of record' in that application are now considered cited or ‘of record' in this application. The prosecution history of the above parent application is relevant in the examination of the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 08/20/2025 has been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
7. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process), claims 11-17 are directed to a computing system (i.e., machine), and claims 18-20 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “accessing first data indicative of an obligation owed by a seller; accessing second data indicative of a plurality of bids from a plurality of authorized bidders, wherein the plurality of bids correspond to a respective transfer of resources from the plurality of authorized bidders to the seller in terms of a respective discount in exchange for the respective transfer of resources; accessing third data indicative of a market discount rate for the obligation and a hurdle rate for the obligation; electronically providing for display a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising … a graphical representation of the plurality of bids and a corresponding eligibility status for acceptance of each bid of the plurality of bids based on the market discount rate and the hurdle rate; determining, …, that at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data has been updated; based on at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data having been updated, determining that the corresponding eligibility status of at least one bid of the plurality of bids has changed; and based on the change in the corresponding eligibility status, causing a respective graphical representation of the at least one bid to change to reflect an updated eligibility status … the at least one bid to be accepted and the obligation to be updated based on the accepted at least one bid.” These recited limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for accepting of each bid of a plurality of bids based on a market discount rate and a hurdle rate for an obligation owned by a seller). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “at least one processor”, and “a graphical user interface element associated with the graphical representation”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “at least one processor”, and “a graphical user interface element associated with the graphical representation” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 11:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 11 recites the at least following limitations of “accessing first data indicative of an obligation owed by a seller; accessing second data indicative of a plurality of bids from a plurality of authorized bidders, wherein the plurality of bids correspond to respective transfers of resources from the plurality of authorized bidders to the seller in terms of a respective discount in exchange for the respective transfer of resources; accessing third data indicative of a market discount rate for the obligation and a hurdle rate for the obligation; electronically providing for display … a graphical representation of the plurality of bids and a corresponding eligibility status for acceptance of each bid of the plurality of bids based on the market discount rate and the hurdle rate; determining that at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data has been updated; based on at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data being updated, determining that the corresponding eligibility status of at least one bid of the plurality of bids has changed; and based on the change in the corresponding eligibility status, causing a respective graphical representation of the at least one bid to change to reflect an updated eligibility status … the at least one bid to be accepted and the obligation to be updated based on the accepted at least one bid.” These recited limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for accepting of each bid of a plurality of bids based on a market discount rate and a hurdle rate for an obligation owned by a seller). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 11 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “one or more processors”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, and “a graphical user interface element associated with the graphical representation”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, and “a graphical user interface element associated with the graphical representation” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 18:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 18 recites the at least following limitations of “accessing first data indicative of an obligation owed by a seller; accessing second data indicative of a plurality of bids from a plurality of authorized bidders, wherein the plurality of bids correspond to a respective transfer of resources from the plurality of authorized bidders to the seller in terms of a respective discount in exchange for the respective transfer of resources; accessing third data indicative of a market discount rate for the obligation and a hurdle rate for the obligation; electronically providing for display … a graphical representation of the plurality of bids and a corresponding eligibility status for acceptance of each bid of the plurality of bids based on the market discount rate and the hurdle rate; determining that at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data has been updated; based on at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data having been updated, determining that the corresponding eligibility status of at least one bid of the plurality of bids has changed; and based on the change in the corresponding eligibility status, causing a respective graphical representation of the at least one bid to change to reflect an updated eligibility status … the at least one bid to be accepted and the obligation to be updated based on the accepted at least one bid.” These recited limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for accepting of each bid of a plurality of bids based on a market discount rate and a hurdle rate for an obligation owned by a seller). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 18 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a computing system”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, and “a graphical user interface element associated with the graphical representation”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a computing system”, “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, and “a graphical user interface element associated with the graphical representation” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2, 12, 19: simply provide further definition to “causing the respective graphical representation of the at least one bid to change to reflect the updated eligibility status” recited in independent claims 1, 11, 18. Simply stating that wherein causing the respective graphical representation of the at least one bid to change to reflect the updated eligibility status comprises: based on at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data, changing the eligibility status of the at least one bid from eligible for acceptance to ineligible for acceptance; or based on at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data, changing the eligibility status of the at least one bid from ineligible for acceptance to eligible for acceptance, wherein changing the eligibility status to eligible for acceptance comprises generating a first GUI element corresponding to the eligible bid and that is selectable to accept the eligible bid, and wherein selecting the first GUI element to accept the eligible bid comprises updating the obligation based on the accepted eligible bid or the respective discount for the obligation amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a first GUI element).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 3: simply refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., further comprising determining the corresponding eligibility status for acceptance by comparing, using the at least one processor, a respective bid amount for each bid from the second data to the hurdle rate), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 1. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the at least one processor amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the at least one processor) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 4: simply provides further definition to “an auction integration engine” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein an auction integration engine enables interoperation between (1) a network interface and a seller auction interface associated with the seller and between (2) the network interface and a bidder interface associated with the plurality of authorized bidders, wherein the first data, the second data, and the third data are transmitted via the network interface amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., an auction integration engine, a network interface, a seller auction interface, a bidder interface).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 5: simply provides further definition to “the discount” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the discount comprises a reduction in the obligation as a portion of an amount for the obligation does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 6: simply provides further definition to “the plurality of bids” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the plurality of bids are received until occurrence of a terminating condition does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 7: simply provides further definition to “the edibility status” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the eligibility status comprises a first status indicative of an eligibility for acceptance or a second status indicative of an ineligibility for acceptance does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 8: simply refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., further comprising: determining, using the at least one processor, a margin by which the at least one bid is eligible; and updating the GUI to indicate the margin), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 1. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the GUI amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the GUI) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 9: simply provides further definition to “determining the corresponding eligibility status” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein determining the corresponding eligibility status comprises determining the market discount based at least in part on a statistical summary of the plurality of bids, wherein the at least one bid is determined to be eligible for acceptance based on the discount in exchange for the transfer of resources being greater than the market discount does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 10: simply refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., further comprising repeating, until a terminating condition occurs, acts comprising: receiving additional bids of the plurality of bids; allocating, using the at least one processor, a portion of a seller auction goal to a bid of the additional bids with a bid amount associated with a rate greater than the hurdle rate, determining, using the at least one processor, an eligibility for acceptance of the plurality of bids, and indicating the corresponding eligibility for acceptance of the plurality of bids), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 1. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by the at least one processor amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., the at least one processor) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 13: simply provides further definition to “the GUI” recited in independent claim 11. Simply stating that wherein the GUI comprises: an event title section comprising identification and logistical information regarding an event associated with the obligation; an event instrument panel section comprising configuration information configurable while the event is in progress; or an event status section comprising information regarding whether the event is in progress or completed amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the GUI).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 14: simply provides further definition to “the GUI” recited in independent claim 11. Simply stating that wherein the GUI comprises a replay element selectable to present a time lapsed view of the changes in the corresponding eligibility status and the respective graphical representation amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the GUI).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 15: simply provides further definition to “determining the corresponding eligibility status” recited in independent claim 11. Simply stating that determining the corresponding eligibility status comprises: comparing (1) electronic data specifying a bid amount of the at least one bid and (2) an amount for the obligation; and based on the comparison, determining that a value exceeds a threshold associated with the at least one bid does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 16: simply provides further definition to “the obligation” recited in independent claim 11. Simply stating that wherein the obligation comprises at least one of an account payable or an account receivable does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 17: simply refines the abstract idea because it recites limitations (e.g., further comprising: receiving an input indicative of acceptance of the bid; and based on the acceptance of the bid, causing an event status on the GUI to reflect the acceptance and an end of a bid session), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 20: simply provides further definition to “the operations” recited in independent claim 18. Simply stating that wherein the operations further comprise: determining occurrence of a terminating condition, wherein the occurrence of the terminating condition comprises expiration of a time duration; based on the determining the occurrence of the terminating condition and based on the corresponding eligibility status indicating an eligibility for acceptance, applying a bid amount of the at least one bid to the obligation; and updating an available inventory of the obligation to reflect the bid amount being applied to the obligation does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the activation link) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Double Patenting
8. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
9. Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,062,087.
Although claims 1-20 of the instant application and claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,062,087 are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,062,087.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application and claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,062,087 recite a computer-implemented method, a system, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of accepting of each bid of a plurality of bids based on a market discount rate and a hurdle rate for an obligation owned by a seller.
For independent claims 1, 11, and 18 of the instant application: Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 of Patent No. 12,062,087 is a narrower version of independent claims 1, 11, and 18 of the instant application with additional allowed claim limitations of “electronically providing an offer to a computer of an authorized bidder to whom a seller owes an obligation, via a network interface over a communications network, the obligation being associated with an available inventory of obligations, wherein the offer is associated with a stated amount for the obligation owed by the seller to the authorized bidder, wherein an auction integration engine enables interoperation between (1) the network interface and a seller auction interface and between (2) the network interface and a bidder interface, via a respective protocol; electronically receiving, via the network interface over the communications network and until occurrence to a terminating condition, a request in a first communications protocol and submit via the bidder interface on the computer of the authorized bidder, the request associated with a bid including electronic data specifying a bid amount in terms of a discount for the obligation as a portion of the stated amount for the obligation; electronically converting the request from the first communications protocol to a second communications protocol; electronically storing a representation of the bid in an auction database; using a processor coupled to the network interface and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.” Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 16 of Patent No. 12,062,087 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of the instant application independent claims 1, 11, and 18. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
10. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that in light of the definition of "commercial interactions" defined by M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), the pending claims are not directed to the abstract idea of "agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marking or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations … Instead, the instant claims are directed to, inter alia, electronically providing for display a GUI comprising a graphical representation of the plurality of bids and a corresponding eligibility status for acceptance; determining that at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data has been updated; determining that the corresponding eligibility status has changed; and causing a respective graphical representation to change to reflect an updated eligibility status … a graphical user interface can be updated (e.g., illustrated in FIGS. 7 and 8 of the originally filed application) to cause display of the seller auction interface to change by causing the generation a graphical user interface element selectable to accept the eligible bid … Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 11, and 18 cannot reasonably be interpreted as reciting certain methods of organizing human activity (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-10).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 8, 15 at issue include the at least claim limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for accepting of each bid of a plurality of bids based on a market discount rate and a hurdle rate for an obligation owned by a seller). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-20 in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that even if independent claims 1, 11, and 18 recite a judicial exception, which Applicant respectfully submits is not the case, the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application … Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite specific aspects of performed techniques, including "determining that the corresponding eligibility status of at least one bid of the plurality of bids has changed; and based on the change in the corresponding eligibility status, causing a respective graphical representation of the at least one bid to change to reflect an updated eligibility status, wherein selection of a graphical user interface element associated with the graphical representation causes the at least one bid to be accepted and the obligation to be updated based on the accepted at least one bid … Applicant notes that independent claims 1, 11, and 18 recite features that are missing from the cited references, as evident based at least on the lack of a prior art rejection. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that even if independent claims 1, 11, and 18 allegedly recite a judicial exception, the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing meaningful limitations on the judicial exception such that the claims are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 10-12).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 8, 15 at issue include additional elements of “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “at least one processor”, and “a graphical user interface element associated with the graphical representation”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, none of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-20 in the section above.
3. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that independent claims 1, 11, and 18 recite an inventive concept …Applicant respectfully submits that even if the Office determines that independent claims 1, 11, and 18 are directed to a judicial exception and do not incorporate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application (which Applicant respectfully refutes), independent claims 1, 11, and 18 recite an inventive concept … independent claims 1, 11, and 18 include limitations, or combinations of limitations, that are missing from the cited references and are not otherwise well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, thus making independent claims 1, 11, and 18 novel and non-obvious in view of the cited references. Indeed, the Office Action did not include any prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 of any of the pending claims. To that end, in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F. 3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit held that "novel or non-routine components [do not] necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete."49 That is, the Federal Circuit held that novel or non-routine components recited in the claims are a factor to consider in the determination of patentable subject matter.50 As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite an inventive concept under Step 2B and are directed to patentable subject matter. For at least these reasons among others, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 12-14).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 8, 15 at issue do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “at least one processor”, and “a graphical user interface element associated with the graphical representation” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-20 in the section above.
11. Double Patenting: Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection and further requests that the Double Patenting rejection be held in abeyance until such time as patentable subject matter has been identified by the Office (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Page 1). Examiner hereby maintains the Double Patenting Rejections of amended claims 1-20 because the amended claims 1-20 did not overcome the Double Patenting Rejections. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-20 in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
12. The best prior art of record, Tulloch et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0162285), hereinafter, “Tulloch”, Podsiadlo (U.S. Patent No. 7,136,833), hereinafter, “Podsiadlo”, Orgad (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0195525), hereinafter, “Orgad”, and Bizri (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0043678), hereinafter, “Bizri’, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the instant application amended claim limitations of " electronically providing for display a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a graphical representation of the plurality of bids and a corresponding eligibility status for acceptance of each bid of the plurality of bids based on the market discount rate and the hurdle rate; determining, via at least one processor, that at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data has been updated; based on at least one of the first data, the second data, or the third data having been updated, determining that the corresponding eligibility status of at least one bid of the plurality of bids has changed; and based on the change in the corresponding eligibility status, causing a respective graphical representation of the at least one bid to change to reflect an updated eligibility status, wherein selection of a graphical user interface element associated with the graphical representation causes the at least one bid to be accepted and the obligation to be updated based on the accepted at least one bid."
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
15. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696