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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 24, 2024 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, 22, 24-26, 28-30 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,939. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 21, 22, 24-26, 28-30 and 32 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims are narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant Application 19/000,950
Patent No. 12,184,939
Claims 21, 25 and 29
Claims 1, 8 and 15
Claims 22, 26 and 30
Claims 4, 11 and 17
Claims 24, 28 and 32
Claims 6, 13 and 19
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.
Claims 21, 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassiri (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0232024) in view of Alaia et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0162332).
Regarding claim 21, Nassiri discloses a computer-implemented method for sequencing respective offerings of a plurality of items to be offered in a live event, the method comprising (see paragraphs 0023-0026 and fig. 1; a live online auction system with auctioneer and bidder interfaces):
obtaining, via one or more processors, a predefined ordering of a plurality of items to be offered in a live event, the plurality of items being offered by a host user via a host device to a plurality of guest users via respective guest devices in the live event (see paragraph 0030 and fig. 2; auctioneer interface includes auction preview region 154 showing upcoming items with images and descriptions);
detecting, via one or more processors, a first offering of a first item of a plurality of items in the live event (see paragraphs 0028-0032 and fig. 2; streaming bid display region 140 shows current auction item and bids);
detecting, via one or more processors, an end of the first offering; responsive to detecting the end of the first offering (see paragraph 0033 and fig. 2; For example, the selection area 142 may include an accept current bid button element 144 which, when selected, causes the auction software to accept the current highest bid and end the auction, thereby awarding the auction item to the highest bidder);
responsive to detecting the end of the first offering, transmitting, to the host device, first communications to the host device to cause a user interface of the host device to display a control selectable to manually cause initiation of a second offering of a second item of the plurality of items, the second item being determined based on the predefined ordering (see paragraph 0037 and fig. 2; auctioneer interface includes next item button 150 to advance to the next item); and
responsive to receiving an indication of a selection of the control, initiating the second offering of the second item in the live event at least by transmitting, to each of the guest devices, second communications indicating information associated with the second offering of the second item (see paragraphs 0037, 0039 and fig. 5; when next item button is selected, information about the next item is transmitted to bidder interfaces).
However, Nassiri is silent as to automatically cause initiation of a second/subsequent offering.
In an analogous art, Alaia et al. discloses automatically cause initiation of a second/subsequent offering (see paragraph 0068; dynamic lot sequencing where subsequent lots are automatically adjusted and initiated based on closing times of prior lots).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nassiri with the teaching of Alaia et al., the motivation being reduce auctioneer workload and ensure timely sequencing.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 21.
Claims 22, 23, 26, 27, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassiri and Alaia et al. as applied to claims 21, 25 and 29 above, and further in view of O’Kelley et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0026588).
Regarding claims 22, 26 and 30, Nassiri and Alaia et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21, 25 and 29). Nassiri discloses transmitting bid updates, reserve changes, and next item information from the auctioneer interface to bidder interfaces (see paragraphs 0025, 0030, 0039 and fig. 2, fig. 5).
However, Nassiri and Alaia et al. are silent as to a publish/subscribe messaging channel.
O’Kelley et al. discloses publish/subscribe messaging channel (see paragraphs 0004, 0022, 0068 and fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nassiri and Alaia et al. with the teaching of O’Kelley et al., the motivation being to distribute updates efficiently to all participants.
Regarding claims 23, 27 and 31, Nassiri and Alaia et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21, 25 and 29). Nassiri discloses receiving from the host device, a real-time video stream associated with the live event; and transmitting to each of the guest devices, the real-time video stream associated with the live event (see paragraphs 0024-0025 and fig. 1).
However, Nassiri and Alaia et al. are silent as to a publish/subscribe messaging channel.
O’Kelley et al. discloses publish/subscribe messaging channel (see paragraphs 0004, 0022, 0068 and fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nassiri and Alaia et al. with the teaching of O’Kelley et al., the motivation being to distribute updates efficiently to all participants.
Claims 24, 28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassiri and Alaia et al. as applied to claims 21, 25 and 29 above, and further in view of Matthews et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0218502).
Regarding claims 24, 28 and 32, Nassiri and Alaia et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21, 25 and 29). Nassiri discloses receiving from the host device, during the first offering, one or more interactions to control plurality of items (see paragraphs 0030, 0037, fig. 2); and responsive to receiving the one or more interactions, sequencing items in predefined order and advancing to the nest item (see paragraph 0037 and fig. 2).
However, Nassiri and Alaia et al. are silent as to receiving user interaction to pin an item and reordering items based on pinning interactions.
Matthews et al. discloses receiving user interaction to pin an item and reordering items based on pinning interactions (see paragraph 0049 and fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nassiri and Alaia et al. with the teaching of Matthews et al., the motivation being to improve usability and flexibility of live auctions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 January 31, 2026.