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
The current application claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 63/515,572, filed July 25, 2023. it
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 9-14 in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 and 15-18 have been withdrawn without traverse.
Claims Status
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-8 and 15-18 have been withdrawn.
Claims 9-14 stand rejected.
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 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 9-14, under Step 2A claims 9-14 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 9 as representative, claim 9 sets forth the following limitations that recite the abstract idea (emphasized in bold):
9. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computers of a computer system, cause the one or more computers to:
maintain at least one data store defining a respective account for each of a plurality of suppliers, each of a plurality of customers, and each of a plurality of bidders;
receive from a supplier computer system a request to submit one or more invoices for auction;
receive a plurality of bids from a plurality of bidder computer systems, each bid including a minimum discount rate and a maximum amount covered; and
for each respective bidder of one or more bidders from the plurality of bidders, cause a display of a bidder computer system of the respective bidder to display a dual-axis representation of a multiplicity of currently outstanding bids, the dual axis representation including a first axis representing a discount rate and a second axis representing the maximum amount covered.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions and/or fundamental economic principals or practices (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes an invoice auction and displaying auction data as a dual-axis representation. Claim 9 thereby recites the performance of a marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. This also describes concepts relating to the economy and commerce that represent fundamental economic practices, which also fall under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 9 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 9 does recite additional elements, including:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computers of a computer system
maintain at least one data store defining a respective account for each of a plurality of suppliers, each of a plurality of customers, and each of a plurality of bidders;
a bidder computer systems, and,
a display of a bidder computer system.
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 claim 9 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 an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In addition to the above, maintain at least one data store defining a respective account for each of a plurality of suppliers, each of a plurality of customers, and each of a plurality of bidders represent little more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering, storing data) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 9 does 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 claim 9, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 9 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 claim 9 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,
electronic recordkeeping
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 9 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 9 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 10-14, dependent claims 10-14 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 10-14. As such, claims 10-14 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 10-14 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. Claims 10-14 rely on the additional elements recited in claim 9, which are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 10-14 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 10-14 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
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) 9-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper (US 2010/0114676) in view of Brownhill (US 2010/0017324).
Regarding claim 9, Kemper teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computers of a computer system, cause the one or more computers to:
maintain at least one data store defining a respective account for each of a plurality of suppliers, each of a plurality of customers, and each of a plurality of bidders (see: Fig. 3 (308, 312, 314, 332), 0084, 0093, 0103-0104);
receive from a supplier computer system a request to submit one or more invoices for auction (see: 0067, 0127, 0190, Fig. 16);
Note: trade debt (including accounts receivables) is analogous to an invoice.
receive a plurality of bids from a plurality of bidder computer systems, each bid including a minimum discount rate and an amount covered (see: 0007 (each bid includes a discount rate), , 0135 (bid discount rate ("Your current bid") and the total amount of debt eligible for payment ("Your Invoice Total for the Event"), 0137); and
cause a display to display a dual-axis representation of a multiplicity of currently outstanding bids, the dual axis representation including a first axis representing a discount rate and a second axis representing the amount covered (see: 0114, Fig. 7).
Note: the x-axis shows discount rates, the y-axis shows payment amounts.
Though disclosing all of the above, Kemper does not disclose the bids to include a maximum amount covered. Further, Kemper discloses a dual-axis interface providing the status of the auction to the seller but does not teach providing such status for each respective bidder of one or more bidders from the plurality of bidders and caused to be displayed on a display of a bidder computer system of the respective bidder. Notably, Fig. 8 does depict an event status section (similar to Fig. 7), but does not expressly provide the event status to the bidder.
To this accord, and in the field of auction systems, Brownhill teaches a system for auctioning invoices (see: abstract, 0020, 0046, 0052). Brownhill receives buyer bids that include a notional amount (maximum amount covered) that represents the amount the buyer is bidding to purchase, which may be 100% or less (see: 0180, Fig. 30 notional amount % of face value)).
Furthermore, Brownhill provides interfaces (e.g., Fig. 29-30) that display live bid and ranking data to sellers and buyers for submitted bids (see: 0178, Fig. 29-30). Brownhill thereby also teaches the live status (event status) of the auction being provided for each respective bidder of one or more bidders from the plurality of bidders and caused to be displayed on a display of a bidder computer system of the respective bidder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kemper to have utilized the known invoice auction technique of Brownhill in order to have enabled trading of accounts receivable across a standardized central exchange that benefit the supplier by providing the most efficient pricing possible while also benefiting the bidder by facilitating better price discovery (see: Brownhill: 0017, 0020, 0046).
10. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9, comprising instructions to cause the display of the bidder computer system to display dual-axis representations as rectangles having distance along the first axis corresponding to the discount rate and a second distance along the second axis corresponding to the maximum amount covered (see: Kemper: 0110, 0114 (payment blocks), 0115-0116, 0119, Fig. 7 (714, 716, 718)).
14. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein the first axis is a vertical axis and the second axis is a horizontal axis (see: Kemper: Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemper in view of Brownhill as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kubicek (US 2003/028444).
Regarding claim 11, Kemper in view of Brownhill teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach cause the display of the bidder computer system to display dual-axis representations of the multiplicity of currently outstanding bids in a sequence along the second axis.
To this accord, Kubicek discloses a dual-axis bid display that cause the display of the bidder computer system to display dual-axis representations of the multiplicity of currently outstanding bids in a sequence along the second axis (see: 0028, Fig. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Kemper in view of Brownhill to have utilized the known sequential display of bids as taught by Kubicek order to have highlighted the bidder’s bid within a sequence of bids depicted on the interface in order to have enabled that bidder to have easily visualized their bi relative to other bidding activity (see: Kubicek: 0028, Fig. 4 (43)).
12. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, comprising instructions to cause the display of the bidder computer system to display dual-axis representations as rectangles having distance along the first axis corresponding to the discount rate and a second distance along the second axis corresponding to the maximum amount covered (see: Kemper: 0110, 0114 (payment blocks), 0115-0116, 0119, Fig. 7 (714, 716, 718)).
13. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 12, comprising instructions to cause the display of the bidder computer system to display the rectangles as abutting (se: (see: Kemper: 0115-0116, 0119, Fig. 7 (714, 716, 718)).
Note: the rectangles for Bidders (21), Bidders (70), and Bidders (34) are adjacent and abutting. Furthermore, the location of the rectangles as claimed is little more than the rearrangement of parts and does not patentably distinguish the invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Avery (US 2014/0289090) discloses systems and methods can be utilized for the price discovery and allocation processes of new issuances of both equity and debt (including, but not limited to, credit vehicles, corporate bonds, loan syndications, commercial paper, municipal bonds, international bonds, sovereign debt, notes) and includes depicting a dual-axis of price vs offer units (see: 0014-0015, 0126, Fig. 2A-2F, Fig. 2J).
MacKay (US 2002/0082985) discloses a system for obtaining prompt or accelerated payment of trade credit obligations (see: 0015, Fig. 1).
Jeon (US 20180330392), discloses a discount rate graph (see: 0067, 0072, Fig. 3).
Erez (US 2006/0184443) discloses auctioning intangible assets like unpaid invoices (see: 0027).
Irribarren (US 2002/0065769) teaches buyer bids that include a maximum price for a working quantity (see: 0065 (maximum price set by the buyer), 0108, 0114, 0123, 0125, Fig. 7 (725)) as well as graphically representing vendor trade curves (see: 0108, Fig. 5C, Fig. 6D).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights