DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 10 July 2026 in regard to application no. 18/813,930. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 10 June 2026 and 10 July 2026 have been entered.
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 claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process), device (machine) or non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture). The claim(s) recite(s) storing data, obtaining additional data, determining an allocation based on a quantity in no particular manner, updating a list, determining a threshold based on the data in no particular manner, delivering information based on capacity, and further sending and gathering data.
These are mental steps which can be done, in the absence of computers, mentally and by consulting paper records. A person can gather or store data, interpret it mentally, peruse lists, and make determinations mentally or by writing on a paper; his ability to do so may be based on capacity such as the amount of available time. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology beyond, at most, pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate data pertaining to allocation of resources, time intervals and the like, they do not improve the "functioning of a computer" or of "any other technology or technical field". See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea "with, or by use of a particular machine", MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of algorithmic and technical detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim to patent eligibility.
Claim 11, which has the most, includes a processor and memory storing instructions. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, ¶ 125, that nothing more than a "general-purpose computing device" is required. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Stating that a computer operates in a certain environment does not limit the computer (or method or medium) any more than claiming a sofa, wherein the sofa is surrounded by other furniture, would limit the sofa. An object’s surroundings do not typically limit the object.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim limitations when considered as an ordered combination - a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps - do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually. The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2-9 and 12-19 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data, and claim 10 simply requires sending data at a certain time.
For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019, revised October 2019)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2026 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As explained above, the environment in which a computer operates is not a limitation of the computer and is therefore considered but given no patentable weight, and so plays no role in the § 101 analysis.
The fact that computers and networks are used is not, per se, sufficient; Alice included as much. Simply gathering and sending information is routinely done with pen and paper and does not require the use of computers. The applicant states in conclusory fashion that the steps cannot be done mentally or with pen and paper, but does not sufficiently explain why this ought to be difficult. People bid in real time at live auctions quite routinely, and the continued references to the non-limiting environment are unavailing.
Bidding is not a “technical field” but simply a routine business process, and it does not become a technical field merely because computers are used. The “combination of operations” refers to the abstraction; there is nothing about the claimed computer that goes beyond the well-understood, routine and conventional.
The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
As no rejection is made herein under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103, a brief review of the state of the art at the time of filing of the present invention is in order. In the previous Office action, claims were rejected based on various combinations of the following references: Maalej et al., Hou et al., Molka et al., Buch et al., Li et al., and Ma et al. As the claims have been amended, further search and consideration were conducted.
Wires et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,952,222) disclose a network data transmission system [title] in which a “data delivery service” may assign a channel based on a request. [Col. 4, lines 27-28] The service “may be allocated a maximum amount of network resource capacity that can be reserved at any given time”. [Col. 4, lines 46-48] But neither Wires nor the prior art previously made of record, alone or if combined, teach or suggest every limitation of the claims of the present invention, in particular the specific dialogue conducted, combined with the other presently-claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights