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
Applicant claims 35 U.S.C. § 119 priority to Korean Patent Application Nos. 10-2023-0123132, filed on September 15, 2023, and 10-2023-0180095, filed on December 12, 2023, in the Korean Intellectual Property Office.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 9/13/2024, 6/9/2025, and 8/20/2025 have been considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 4/13/2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 16, 23, and 24 have been amended. Claims 1-25 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 recites “determine that the auction end time point…range; and” in lines 10-11 and should recite “determine that the auction end time point…range;
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-11, are directed to a process, the system, as claimed in claims 12-24, are directed to a machine, and the non-transitory computer readable medium, as claimed in claim 25, are directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
obtaining auction information associated with an auction for a game item, the auction information including auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtaining an auction end time range indicating a time range that includes an auction end time point, the auction end time range extending past the auction end time point, based on the auction time information;
determining that the auction end time point for the game item is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range;
displaying of each of a plurality of users, a game item that indicates information about remaining time for the auction based on the auction end time range and the determination that the auction end time point is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range; and
receiving one or more bid requests from each of the user via the game item throughout a portion of the auction end time range between the beginning of the auction end time range and the auction end time point.
Claim 24 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
obtain auction information associated with an auction for a game item, wherein the auction information comprises auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtain an auction end time range indicating a time range that includes an auction end time point, the auction end time range extending past the auction end time point, based on the auction time information; and
determine an auction end time point for the game item to be any time point within the auction end time range; and
display a game item that indicates information about remaining time for the auction based on the auction end time range and the determination that the auction end time point is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range; and
transmit one or more bid requests via the game item throughout a portion of the auction end time range between the beginning of the auction end time range and the auction end time point.
Independent claims 12, 23, and 25 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 12, 23, and 25 as described for independent claim 1.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in claims 1, 12, and 23-25 are certain methods of organizing human activity because determining an auction end time based on auction information and an auction end time range is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 23-25 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A method of providing a game service by a game providing apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining auction information associated with an auction for a game item, the auction information including auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtaining an auction end time range indicating a time range that includes an auction end time point, the auction end time range extending past the auction end time point, based on the auction time information;
determining that the auction end time point for the game item is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range;
displaying, via user terminals of each of a plurality of users, a game item interface that indicates information about remaining time for the auction based on the auction end time range and the determination that the auction end time point is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range; and
receiving one or more bid requests from each of the user terminals via the game item interface throughout a portion of the auction end time range between the beginning of the auction end time range and the auction end time point.
In this case, claim 12 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A game providing apparatus comprising:
memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain auction information associated with an auction for a game item, wherein the auction information comprises auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtain an auction end time range indicating a time range that includes an auction end time point, the auction end time range extending past the auction end time point, based on the auction time information;
determine that the auction end time point for the game item is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range;
display, via user terminals of each of a plurality of users, a game item interface that indicates information about remaining time for the auction based on the auction end time range and the determination that the auction end time point is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range; and
receive one or more bid requests from each of the user terminals via the game item interface throughout a portion of the auction end time range between the beginning of the auction end time range and the auction end time point.
In this case, claim 23 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A server comprising:
memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain auction information associated with an auction for a game item, wherein the auction information comprises auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtain an auction end time range indicating a time range that includes an auction end time point, the auction end time range extending past the auction end time point based on the auction time information;
determine that the auction end time point for the game item is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range;
display, via user terminals of each of a plurality of users, a game item interface that indicates information about remaining time for the auction based on the auction end time range and the determination that the auction end time point is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range; and
receive one or more bid requests from each of the user terminals via the game item interface throughout a portion of the auction end time range between the beginning of the auction end time range and the auction end time point.
In this case, claim 24 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A user terminal comprising:
memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain auction information associated with an auction for a game item, wherein the auction information comprises auction time information associated with a time of the auction;
obtain an auction end time range indicating a time range that includes an auction end time point, the auction end time range extending past the auction end time point, based on the auction time information; and
determine an auction end time point for the game item to be any time point within the auction end time range; and
display a game item interface that indicates information about remaining time for the auction based on the auction end time range and the determination that the auction end time point is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range; and
transmit one or more bid requests via the game item interface throughout a portion of the auction end time range between the beginning of the auction end time range and the auction end time point.
In this case, claim 25 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising a program for executing on a computer the method of providing the game service according to claim 1.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“by a game providing apparatus”, “game providing apparatus comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions”, “a server comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions”, “a user terminal comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising a program for executing on a computer”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (obtaining information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 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 the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1, 14-16; paragraphs [0067]-[0079], [0234]-[0284]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited obtaining steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 do 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 claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 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 claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 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,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1, 12, 23, 24, and 25 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 13-22
Dependent claim(s) 2-11 and 13-22, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-11 and 13-22 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 and 12 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1 and 12.
Claims 2-11 and 13-22 set forth:
wherein the auction time information comprises at least one of an auction duration for the game item, an auction start time point for the game item, an auction end time range for the game item, and an auction end time point for the game item.
wherein the game item comprises a nickname of a character.
further comprising: identifying whether a condition for registering the game item for sale is satisfied, and determining the sale registration of the game item based on the identifying that the condition for registering the game item for sale is satisfied.
further comprising providing information that the auction for the game item may end at any time point when the imminent auction end time point for the game item has passed.
further comprising providing information that the game item cannot be registered for sale based on the identifying that the condition for registering the game item for sale is not satisfied.
wherein the auction information comprises at least one of a name of the game item, a type of the game item, a number of game items, a minimum bid, and a maximum bid.
wherein the condition for registering the game item for sale comprises at least one of whether a limit on the number of auctions within a certain period granted to each user is exceeded, whether a user holds goods exceeding a sale registration deposit, and whether the game item is a tradable item or an auctionable item.
wherein the auction information comprises a nickname to be used by a character after registering the nickname for sale.
wherein the game item is searchable by using at least one of a language, a number of characters, and a sale price range.
further comprising providing information about a remaining time of the auction for the game item when the imminent auction end time point for the game item has not passed.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of determining an auction end time based on auction information and an auction end time range. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1 and 12, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 2-11 and 13-22.
Thus, dependent 2-11 and 13-22 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-9, 11-20, 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale (US 2012/0185346 A1) in view of Dhunjishaw et al. (US 2006/0234795 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 1,Hale discloses a method of providing a service by a providing apparatus (Fig. 1; abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining auction information associated with an auction for a item, the auction information including auction time information associated with a time of the auction (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶¶0017-0018, ¶¶0026-0027, ¶¶0035-0037);
obtaining an auction end time range indicating a time range that includes an auction end time point, the auction end time range extending past the auction end time point, based on the auction time information (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶¶0022-0028);
determining that the auction end time point for the item is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶¶0022-0028);
displaying, via user terminals of each of a plurality of users, a item interface that indicates information about remaining time for the auction based on the auction end time range and the determination that the auction end time point is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶0017, ¶¶0035-0039); and
receiving one or more bid requests from each of the user terminals via the item interface throughout a portion of the auction end time range between the beginning of the auction end time range and the auction end time point (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶0017, ¶¶0022-0028, ¶¶0035-0039).
While Hale discloses an auction for an item (Figs. 1, 7-9; ¶0001, ¶0017), Hale does not explicitly disclose providing a game service by a game providing apparatus for an auction for a game item. However, in the field of transferring online privileges in a game via an auction (abstract), Dhunjishaw et al., hereinafter Dhunjishaw teaches providing a game service by a game providing apparatus (Figs. 1-2; abstract, ¶¶0021-0036) and the item in the auction is a game item (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0004, ¶¶0015-0016, ¶0028, ¶0040). The steps of Dhunjishaw is applicable to the method of Hale as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online auctions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the auction item as disclosed by Hale with the providing a game service by a game providing apparatus for an auction for a game item as taught by Dhunjishaw. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Hale in order to sell game items for real money using online auctions, similar to selling ordinary physical items (¶0004).
Regarding claim 2, Hale in view of Dhunjishaw teaches the method of claim 1, Hale further discloses wherein the auction time information comprises at least one of an auction duration for the item, an auction start time point for the item, an auction end time range for the item, and an auction end time point for the item (Figs. 2-9; ¶¶0005-0006, ¶¶0022-0030). Dhunjishaw teaches the items are game items (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0004, ¶¶0015-0016, ¶0028, ¶0040). The motivation for making this modification to the method of Hale are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Hale in view of Dhunjishaw teaches the method of claim 1. Dhunjishaw further teaches wherein the game item comprises a nickname of a character (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0028 [game items include abstract items, such as memberships, levels of membership, titles, or names]; Examiner notes names is comparable to a nickname). The motivation for making this modification to the method of Hale are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hale in view of Dhunjishaw teaches the method of claim 1. While Hale further discloses further comprising:
identifying whether a condition for the item for sale is satisfied (Figs. 2-8; ¶¶0005-0025, ¶0036, ¶0038), and
determining the sale of the item based on the identifying that the condition for the item for sale is satisfied (Figs. 2-8; ¶¶0005-0025, ¶0036, ¶0038),
Hale does not explicitly disclose identifying whether a condition for registering the game item and determining the sale registration of the game item based on the identifying that the condition for registering the game item for sale is satisfied. However, Dhunjishaw further teaches identifying whether a condition for registering the game item for sale is satisfied (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0038 [The seller selects a game item to auction through the seller's computer system, block 3010, and requests an auction for the selected game item, block 3020. The game server selects the indicated item and confirms that the game item is associated with the seller's game account. The game server does not permit the seller to auction game items that are not associated with the seller's game account and rejects such requests.]), and determining the sale registration of the game item based on the identifying that the condition for registering the game item for sale is satisfied (Figs. 1-3A; ¶¶0038-0039 [After confirming the auction request, the game server negotiates auction parameters with the seller, block 3030. The auction parameters indicate how the auction is to be performed, such as auction form, starting price, reserve price, time limit, etc. Once the seller confirms the auction parameters, the game server provides the auction parameters to the auction server and the auction server begins setting up the auction, block 3040.]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the auction item conditions as disclosed by Hale with the registration game item conditions as taught by Dhunjishaw. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Hale in order to not permit the seller to auction game items that are not associated with the seller’s game account (¶0038).
Regarding claim 5, Hale in view of Dhunjishaw teaches the method of claim 1, Hale further discloses further comprising providing information that the auction for the item may end at any time point when an imminent auction end time point for the item has passed (Fig. 8; ¶0038). Dhunjishaw teaches the items are game items (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0004, ¶¶0015-0016, ¶0028, ¶0040). The motivation for making this modification to the method of Hale are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Hale in view of Dhunjishaw teaches the method of claim 4, Dhunjishaw further teaches further comprising providing information that the game item cannot be registered for sale based on the identifying that the condition for registering the game item for sale is not satisfied (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0038 [The seller selects a game item to auction through the seller's computer system, block 3010, and requests an auction for the selected game item, block 3020. The game server selects the indicated item and confirms that the game item is associated with the seller's game account. The game server does not permit the seller to auction game items that are not associated with the seller's game account and rejects such requests.]). The motivation for making this modification to the method of Hale are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Hale in view of Dhunjishaw teaches the method of claim 1, Hale further discloses wherein the auction information comprises at least one of a name of the item, a type of the item, a number of items, a minimum bid, and a maximum bid (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶¶0017-0019, ¶¶0026-0027, ¶¶0034-0037). Dhunjishaw teaches the items are game items (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0004, ¶¶0015-0016, ¶0028, ¶0040). The motivation for making this modification to the method of Hale are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Hale in view of Dhunjishaw teaches the method of claim 4. Dhunjishaw further teaches wherein the condition for registering the game item for sale comprises at least one of whether a limit on the number of auctions within a certain period granted to each user is exceeded, whether a user holds goods exceeding a sale registration deposit, and whether the game item is a tradable item or an auctionable item (Figs. 1-3A; ¶¶0028-0029, ¶0038 [The seller selects a game item to auction through the seller's computer system, block 3010, and requests an auction for the selected game item, block 3020. The game server selects the indicated item and confirms that the game item is associated with the seller's game account. The game server does not permit the seller to auction game items that are not associated with the seller's game account and rejects such requests.]; Examiner notes a game item that a seller is not associated with is not auctionable (or tradable)). The motivation for making this modification to the method of Hale are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, Hale in view of Dhunjishaw teaches the method of claim 3, Dhunjishaw further teaches wherein the auction information comprises a nickname to be used by a character after registering the nickname for sale (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0028 [game items include abstract items, such as memberships, levels of membership, titles, or names] and ¶0038; Examiner notes names is comparable to a nickname). The motivation for making this modification to the method of Hale are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Hale in view of Dhunjishaw teaches the method of claim 1, Hale further discloses further comprising providing information about the remaining time of the auction for the game item when an imminent auction end time point for the game item has not passed (Fig. 7; ¶¶0035-0037).
Regarding claims 12, 23, and 25, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 1, except claims 12 and 23 are directed to machines and claim 28 is directed to an article of manufacture, while claim 1 is directed to a process. The added elements of “a game providing apparatus comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions”, “a server comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising a program for executing on a computer” are also disclosed by Hale (see Fig. 1; ¶¶0016-0017, claim 16). Therefore, claims 12, 23, and 25 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 13-20 and 22, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claims 2-9 and 11, except claims 2-9 and 11 are directed to processes, while claims 13-20 and 22 are directed to a machines. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 2-9 and 11, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 13-20 and 22 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 2-9 and 11.
Regarding claim 24, Hale discloses a user terminal comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor functionally connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 1; abstract, ¶¶0016-0017, claim 16) to:
obtain auction information associated with an auction for a item, wherein the auction information comprises auction time information associated with a time of the auction (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶¶0017-0018, ¶¶0026-0027, ¶¶0035-0037);
obtain an auction end time range indicating a time range that includes an auction end time point, the auction end time range extending past the auction end time point based on the auction time information (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶¶0022-0028);
determine that the auction end time point for the item is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶¶0022-0028);
display a item interface that indicates information about remaining time for the auction based on the auction end time range determination that the auction end time point is set to occur at any time point within the auction end time range (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶0017, ¶¶0035-0039); and
transmit one or more bid requests via the item interface throughout a portion of the auction end time range between the beginning of the auction end time range and the auction end time point (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9; ¶0017, ¶¶0022-0028, ¶¶0035-0039).
While Hale discloses an auction for an item (Figs. 1, 7-9; ¶0001, ¶0017), Hale does not explicitly disclose a game item. However, in the field of transferring online privileges in a game via an auction (abstract), Dhunjishaw teaches the item in the auction is a game item (Figs. 1-3A; ¶0004, ¶¶0015-0016, ¶0028, ¶0040). The apparatus of Dhunjishaw is applicable to the apparatus of Hale as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online auctions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the auction item as disclosed by Hale with the auction for a game item as taught by Dhunjishaw. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Hale in order to sell game items for real money using online auctions, similar to selling ordinary physical items (¶0004).
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale in view of Dhunjishaw and in further view of Somaiya et al. (US 2016/0048897 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 10, Hale in view of Dhunjishaw teaches the method of claim 3. While Hale further discloses enabling a user to communicate with an online auction site using the internet (¶0017), Hale in view of Dhunjishaw does not explicitly disclose wherein the game item is searchable by using at least one of a language, a number of characters, and a sale price range. However, in the field of online auctions (abstract), Somaiya et al., hereinafter Somaiya, teaches enabling a user to provide a search query to search listings in an auction using a text entry box and to display results along with popular price ranges for the one or more items enabling a user to additionally search by a sale price range (Figs. 6-11C; ¶¶0086-0106). The step of Somaiya is applicable to the method of Hale in view of Dhunjishaw as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online auctions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the communication with an online auction site as taught by Hale in view of Dhunjishaw with the text based searching and sale price range searching as taught by Somaiya. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Hale in view of Dhunjishaw in order to provide to the user popular price ranges for one or more items based on one or more received search queries (Somaiya ¶0017).
Regarding claim 21, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 10, except claim 10 is directed to processes, while claim 21 is directed to a machine. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10, and does not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-9 of the Remarks filed 4/13/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims. Accordingly the previous claim objections are withdrawn. Due to the amended claims, new claim objections have been applied.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 9-11 of the Remarks filed 4/13/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims incorporate any abstract idea that may be present in the claims into a practical application by improving overload of computing devices as a result of “sniping” is reduced. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Discouraging bidders to “snipe” an auction by having the auction end at an unknown point within a time range improves the abstract idea itself by (arguably) providing equal bidding opportunities to multiple users and prevent excessive competition by encouraging users to bid at an appropriate price with sufficient time before the end of bidding (see Specification paragraphs [0005], [0094], [0287]).
While the Specification explicitly sets forth an improvement of “alleviating the load on the server” and “preventing server overload” (see paragraphs [0094], [0118], [0287]), it does so in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art) (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Applicant's specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The alleged improvement is at best a bare assertion of the improvement and insufficient to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the technical improvement. Any improvement manifested by the invention is to the abstract idea of maintaining life state information and using that life state information to provide filtered information from partners. Improving “server overload” by reducing the number of concurrent bid request received at a time is not tantamount to improving “the functioning of a computer” itself or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Instead, this rises to little more than claiming improved speed or efficiency inherit with applying the abstract idea on a computer. Using an unknown point within a time range to end an auction to improve the abstract commercial process to prevent “sniping” and encouraging users to bid at an appropriate price with sufficient time before the end of bidding is merely an improvement to the abstract commercial process and users the computer components in their ordinary capacity to automate the analysis and decision making.
As an example, Applicant's attention is drawn to Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, the courts found the claims to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743- 44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
Considered individually or as a whole, the claims do nothing more than recite the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 11-12 of the Remarks filed 4/13/2026, with respect to the 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new 35 USC §103 rejections applied to applicant’s amended claims.
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 LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/MARISSA THEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights