DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/203,704 filed on May 1, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/011,641 filed on September 3, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/938,437 filed on March 28, 2018, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/913,913 filed on June 10, 2013, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/681,675 filed on March 2, 2007.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below. Claims 2-9 are directed to the same judicial exception and do not recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
STEP 1
Claim 1 is directed to a process and therefore falls within one of the statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, the claim is analyzed under the judicial exception framework.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
Claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Specifically, claim 1 recites limitations including:
• generating a schedule data structure containing reservation slots;
• determining that a reservation slot is available for bidding;
• receiving bids for a service;
• storing bids;
• comparing bids submitted by multiple users;
• determining that one bid amount exceeds another bid amount;
• identifying a highest bidder; and
• granting a reservation to the highest bidder.
These limitations are directed to conducting an auction for reservations associated with goods and services. The claimed invention manages commercial transactions involving reservation rights for services and allocates those reservation rights based on bid values submitted by participants.
Such activities constitute a fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction. Auctioning access to goods, services, reservations, or other resources has long been a well-established economic practice and therefore falls within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Additionally, the claim recites mental processes because the steps of receiving bids, comparing bid amounts, determining the highest bidder, selecting a winning bid, and awarding a reservation may practically be performed in the human mind or by a human auction administrator using pen and paper.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the form of:
(1) Certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions and fundamental economic practices; and (2) Mental processes.
Therefore, claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include:
• a processor;
• a schedule data structure;
• a storage device; and
• generic computer implementation.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely serve as tools to perform the auction process. The claimed processor merely receives bids, stores information, performs comparisons, and outputs results.
The storage device merely stores bid information.
The schedule data structure merely organizes reservation information.
The claim does not recite any improvement to:
• computer technology;
• database technology;
• scheduling technology;
• reservation-management technology;
• networking technology;
• processor functionality; or
• data-storage technology.
Rather, the computer components merely automate the abstract process of conducting a bidding-based reservation allocation. The claim merely uses generic computer technology as a tool to perform a commercial transaction more efficiently.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B
Claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, merely perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions.
Specifically:
• receiving bids;
• storing bids;
• comparing values;
• maintaining reservation records;
• identifying winning bids;
• updating reservation information; and
• outputting results
represent routine computer operations.
The recited processor, storage device, and data structures are generic computer components performing their ordinary functions. The claim merely automates the longstanding business practice of allocating reservation opportunities through competitive bidding.
Viewed as an ordered combination, the claim simply implements an auction process using generic computing technology and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claim 1 lacks an inventive concept.
Claim 2 recites limiting bidding to a specified period of time and rejecting bids received after that period. Auction deadlines and bid-submission periods are longstanding commercial practices and therefore constitute additional aspects of the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites notifying a customer regarding a submitted bid. Providing information to participants in a commercial transaction constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity and routine communication.
Claim 4 recites that the bid amount represents an amount charged for reserving the service. This limitation merely identifies the economic value being bid and therefore remains within the abstract economic concept.
Claim 5 recites storing descriptions of goods, prices, and customer evaluations.
These limitations merely identify additional categories of information used within the commercial transaction and do not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 6 recites updating the schedule data structure to indicate that the reservation has been awarded. Updating records after determining a transaction outcome constitutes insignificant post-solution activity.
Claim 7 recites receiving bids for a second reservation slot, determining capacity limitations, and denying reservation requests. Managing capacity and rejecting requests based on availability are fundamental reservation-management activities and methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 8 recites counting denials and adjusting the ratio of actual table slots to virtual table slots. These limitations merely represent business-rule optimization and resource allocation decisions directed to maximizing utilization of available reservation opportunities. Such activities constitute commercial decision-making and do not improve any underlying technology.
Claim 9 recites conducting a similar bidding process for actual table slots corresponding to dine-in services. This limitation merely applies the same abstract auction process to another category of reservation and therefore remains within the abstract idea.
Claims 1-9 are directed to abstract ideas including fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, reservation allocation through bidding, auction management, resource allocation, and mental processes. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowable over prior art. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights