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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
3. The examiner contends that, under the judicial exceptions enumerated in the MPEP § 2106, to determine the patent-eligibility of an application, a two- part analysis has to be conducted.
Part 1: it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106.03.
Part 2A: Prong 1: (1) Determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or one of the judicial exceptions. Examples of abstract ideas referenced in Alice Corp. include:
1. Certain method of organizing human activity such as Fundamental Economic Practices, Commercial and Legal Interactions, or Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.
2. A mental process.
3. Mathematical relationships/formulas.
Part 2A: Prong 2: determine if the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Part 2B: determine if the claim provides an inventive concept.
Analysis
4. Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is found that the claim indeed recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process - one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2A (Prong 1), using claim 8 as the representative claim, it is determined that apart from generic hardware and extra-solution activity discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 below, the claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. For instance, the claim language “a method of executing real estate automatic trading…; receiving a sell order for a target real estate including a selection of one of order execution rules of the target real estate…; receiving a plurality of ask prices…, receiving a plurality of bid prices…, and storing the plurality of ask prices and the plurality of bid prices as an order price for the target real estate; and generating order execution information including an order execution counterparty and an order execution price for the target real estate based on the plurality of ask prices and the plurality of bid prices” is a fundamental economic practice. Fundamental economic practices fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (Prong 2), the examiner contends that the claim recites a combination of additional elements including “trading device, seller terminal and buyer terminals.” These additional elements, considered in the context of claim 8 as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are simply being applied to the abstract idea and being used as tools in executing the claimed process. Thus, it is determined that claim 8 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer technology or otherwise integrated into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, it is determined that, taken alone, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer processor— that is, mere instructions to apply a generic computer processor to the abstract idea. The only hardware or additional elements beyond the abstract idea of claim 8 are the generically recited “trading device, seller terminal and buyer terminals.” The specification does not point to sufficient evidence that any of these components are anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional hardware components or systems being used in their ordinary manner. Thus, applying an exception using a generic computer processor cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. And looking at the limitations as an ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examiner contends that the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188— 89 (1981).” A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.” Specifically, an improvement to an abstract idea cannot be a basis for determining that the claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, relying on a “processor” to “perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OJP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 7788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the examiner concludes that the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the independent claims otherwise styled as a computer-readable medium encoded to perform specific tasks, machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Furthermore, the limitations in the dependent claims are thus subject to the same analysis as in claim 8 and are rejected using the same rationale as in claim 8 above. More specifically, dependent claims 2-7 do not recite additional elements but merely further narrow the scope of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 이승화 (KR 101234810 B1).
Re claim 1. 이승화 discloses a real estate automatic trading device comprising: a sell order receiving unit configured to receive a sell order for a target real estate including a selection of one of order execution rules of the target real estate from a seller terminal (see the abstract, also see “Description-Of-Embodiments,” para 10); an order price receiving unit configured to receive
a plurality of ask prices from a plurality of sale proposal terminals for the target real estate based on the selected order execution rule (see the abstract), receive a plurality of bid prices from a plurality of buyer terminals wishing to purchase the target real estate (see the abstract), and store the plurality of ask prices and the plurality of bid prices as an order price for the target real estate (i.e. storage unit, see “Description-Of-Embodiments,” para 23); and an order execution unit
configured to generate order execution information including an order execution counterparty and an order execution price for the target real estate based on the plurality of ask prices and the plurality of bid prices (see the abstract, see “Description-Of-Embodiments,” para 6).
Re claim 2. 이승화 discloses the real estate automatic trading device of claim 1, wherein the order price receiving unit performs a suitability verification based on an upper/lower price limit range set for the target real estate compared to a reference price for at least one of the ask price and the bid price (i.e. “On the other hand, when the transaction method for the real estate corresponds to the second auction method, the operation of comparing the result of the auction price and the fee (operation value) with a predetermined value is performed (S26). As an example, an operation may be performed to add the sum of the highest auction price among the auction prices received from the plurality of bidders and the fee from the total bidders, and the operation of determining whether the operation value is greater than the sale of the real estate may be performed. Can be. However, embodiments of the present invention need not be limited thereto, and it may be determined whether the calculated value is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount added to the sale of the real estate. The fixed amount is a kind of salary provided to a trading brokerage company (or a system operator) when closing a sale transaction on the property, for example, to be set to an amount corresponding to a certain percentage (for example, 1%) of the sale of the property. Can be. That is, when the sum of the highest auction price and the fees from all the bidders is equal to or more than the sum of the real estate sale price and the salary fee, the transaction may be completed,” see “Description-Of-Embodiments).
Re claim 4. 이승화 discloses the real estate automatic trading device of claim 3, wherein the reference price is determined as a higher price of a highest bid price and a lowest ask price within the previous order prices (i.e. “In other words, if the number of bidders is small and the total auction price and fee is less than the sale price of the real estate, the sale and trade cannot be concluded. For example, if the selling price is greater than the sum of the highest bidding price and the total bidding fee, the transaction may be bidded, or, as shown in Table 2, the highest bidding price and bidding fee in consideration of the completion fee of the trading brokerage company (or system operator”),” see “Description-Of-Embodiments).
Re claim 5. 이승화 discloses the real estate automatic trading device of claim 1, wherein if the selected order execution rule is that the transaction is concluded based on an order price designated by the seller terminal, in the sell order receiving unit, whether a revised ask price for the target real estate is to be calculated by the real estate automatic trading device is determined by the seller terminal (i.e. “Discuss the selling period and the selling amount of the real estate to be sold, prepare the real estate sales contract in a form (exclusive transaction contract, etc.) provided separately, and various sales documents necessary for carrying out the real estate lottery sale (certificate of registration and seal) Seller terminal 200 and the like to provide, see “Description-Of-Embodiments”).
Re claim 8. Claim 8 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale as in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
While no art is cited against claims 6-8, these claims are rejected for being directed to an abstract idea, a method of organizing human activity. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OJO O OYEBISI whose telephone number is (571)272-8298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OJO O OYEBISI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695