DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim 1 recites determining an auction close time at which an auction will close; enabling a bidder to place at least one bid on the asset being auctioned; determining whether the bidder has access to an immediate-purchase option; in response to determining that the bidder has access to the immediate-purchase option, enabling the bidder to immediately purchase the asset for an immediate-purchase price prior to the auction close time expiring; in response to determining that a bid has been received on the asset being auctioned while the online auction is in progress and prior to the auction close time expiring, displaying a current highest bid; and in response to a selection to immediately purchase the asset prior to the auction close time expiring, indicating that the auction has been closed prematurely, which is an abstract idea reasonably categorized as a certain method of organizing human (i.e., marketing/sales activities in the form of auctions).
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions and an interface. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2-13 describe information, evaluation of information, and the results of such evaluation and thus further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 14-20 describe substantially the same abstract idea as claims 1-13 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 11625768 B2).
As per claim 1, Miller discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon sequences of computer-executable instructions for providing a real-time dynamically adjusted user interface for an online auction (Miller Fig. 4.), the sequences of computer-executable instructions including instructions that instruct at least one processor to:
determine, for an asset being auctioned in the online auction, an auction close time at which the online auction will close (Miller c4 l5-6. Auction can have set duration.);
provide a bidder interface for a bidder, the bidder interface including one or more first user-interface elements to enable the bidder to place at least one bid on the asset being auctioned (Miller Fig. 1 item 154.);
determine, dynamically in real-time while the online auction is being conducted, whether the bidder has access to an immediate-purchase option (Miller c4 l17-53. Buy-now option available based on factors.);
in response to determining that the bidder has access to the immediate-purchase option, provide one or more second user-interface elements on the bidder interface to enable the bidder to immediately purchase the asset for an immediate-purchase price prior to the auction close time expiring (Miller Fig. 1 item 144.);
in response to determining that a bid has been received on the asset being auctioned while the online auction is in progress and prior to the auction close time expiring, update the bidder interface in real-time to display a current highest bid (Miller Fig. 1 item 152.); and
in response to determining that a selection of the one or more second user-interface elements has been received to immediately purchase the asset prior to the auction close time expiring, update the bidder interface in real-time prior to the auction close time expiring to indicate that the auction has been closed prematurely (Miller c5 l58-60. Sale ends when buyer invokes buy-now option.).
As per claim 14, Miller discloses a method of providing a real-time dynamically adjusted user interface for an online auction, the method comprising:
determining, for an asset being auctioned in the online auction, an auction close time at which the online auction will close (Miller c4 l5-6. Auction can have set duration.);
providing a bidder interface for a bidder, the bidder interface including one or more first user-interface elements to enable the bidder to place at least one bid on the asset being auctioned (Miller Fig. 1 item 154.);
determining, dynamically in real-time while the online auction is being conducted, whether the bidder has access to an immediate-purchase option (Miller c4 l17-53. Buy-now option available based on factors.);
in response to determining that the bidder has access to the immediate-purchase option, providing one or more second user-interface elements on the bidder interface to enable the bidder to immediately purchase the asset for an immediate-purchase price prior to the auction close time expiring (Miller Fig. 1 item 144.);
in response to determining that a bid has been received on the asset being auctioned while the online auction is in progress and prior to the auction close time expiring, updating the bidder interface in real-time to display a current highest bid (Miller Fig. 1 item 152.); and
in response to determining that a selection of the one or more second user-interface elements has been received to immediately purchase the asset prior to the auction close time expiring, updating the bidder interface in real-time prior to the auction close time expiring to indicate that the auction has been closed prematurely (Miller c5 l58-60. Sale ends when buyer invokes buy-now option.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 11625768 B2) in view of Stein et al. (US 20140195304 A1).
As per claim 2, Miller discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Stein discloses wherein the instructions further instruct the at least one processor to: monitor one or more asset-popularity metrics indicative of an amount of interest in the asset; and dynamically update the immediate-purchase price in real-time on the bidder interface while the online auction is in progress based on the one or more asset-popularity metrics (Stein [0033] system automatically changes prices based on user traffic to a website.).
Both Miller and Stein are directed to dynamic pricing of products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Stein’s features to Miller with the motivation to encourage sales (Stein Abstract.).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller and Stein and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 3, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Stein discloses wherein the one or more asset-popularity metrics include an amount of website traffic to the bidder interface for the asset (Stein [0033] system automatically changes prices based on user traffic to a website.).
Both Miller and Stein are directed to dynamic pricing of products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Stein’s features to Miller with the motivation to encourage sales (Stein Abstract.).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller and Stein and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 6, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Miller further discloses wherein the one or more asset-popularity metrics include an amount of time until the auction close time expires (Miller c3 l47-48. Price automatically decreases as time passes.).
As per claim 15, Miller discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Stein discloses wherein the instructions further instruct the at least one processor to: monitor one or more asset-popularity metrics indicative of an amount of interest in the asset; and dynamically update the immediate-purchase price in real-time on the bidder interface while the online auction is in progress based on the one or more asset-popularity metrics (Stein [0033] system automatically changes prices based on user traffic to a website.).
Both Miller and Stein are directed to dynamic pricing of products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Stein’s features to Miller with the motivation to encourage sales (Stein Abstract.).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller and Stein and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 16, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Stein discloses wherein the one or more asset-popularity metrics include an amount of website traffic to the bidder interface for the asset (Stein [0033] system automatically changes prices based on user traffic to a website.).
Both Miller and Stein are directed to dynamic pricing of products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Stein’s features to Miller with the motivation to encourage sales (Stein Abstract.).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller and Stein and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 19, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Miller further discloses wherein the one or more asset-popularity metrics include an amount of time until the auction close time expires (Miller c3 l47-48. Price automatically decreases as time passes.).
Claims 4, 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 11625768 B2) in view of Stein et al. (US 20140195304 A1) and Yenisetty et al. (US 20170039634 A1).
As per claim 4, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Yenisetty discloses wherein the one or more asset-popularity metrics include a number of bids placed on the asset (Yenisetty [0066]. Current bid velocity of item at auction analyzed and price generated based on analysis. [0059] Bid velocity data includes number of bids and frequency of bids.).
Each of Miller, Stein, and Yenisetty involve the pricing of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Yenisetty’s features to Miller and Stein with the motivation to reduce uncertainty in item pricing (Yenisetty [0002].).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller, Stein, and Yenisetty and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 5, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Yenisetty discloses wherein the one or more asset-popularity metrics include a frequency of bids placed on the asset (Yenisetty [0066]. Current bid velocity of item at auction analyzed and price generated based on analysis. [0059] Bid velocity data includes number of bids and frequency of bids.).
Each of Miller, Stein, and Yenisetty involve the pricing of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Yenisetty’s features to Miller and Stein with the motivation to reduce uncertainty in item pricing (Yenisetty [0002].).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller, Stein, and Yenisetty and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 17, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Yenisetty discloses wherein the one or more asset-popularity metrics include a number of bids placed on the asset (Yenisetty [0066]. Current bid velocity of item at auction analyzed and price generated based on analysis. [0059] Bid velocity data includes number of bids and frequency of bids.).
Each of Miller, Stein, and Yenisetty involve the pricing of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Yenisetty’s features to Miller and Stein with the motivation to reduce uncertainty in item pricing (Yenisetty [0002].).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller, Stein, and Yenisetty and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 18, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Yenisetty discloses wherein the one or more asset-popularity metrics include a frequency of bids placed on the asset (Yenisetty [0066]. Current bid velocity of item at auction analyzed and price generated based on analysis. [0059] Bid velocity data includes number of bids and frequency of bids.).
Each of Miller, Stein, and Yenisetty involve the pricing of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Yenisetty’s features to Miller and Stein with the motivation to reduce uncertainty in item pricing (Yenisetty [0002].).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller, Stein, and Yenisetty and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 11625768 B2) in view of Stein et al. (US 20140195304 A1) and Dillon-Ferris (US 20070094122 A1).
As per claim 8, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Dillon-Ferris discloses wherein dynamically updating the immediate-purchase price is executed within a lower bound and an upper bound of purchase prices (Dillon-Ferris claim 3. Selling price range.).
Each of Miller, Stein, and Dillon-Ferris involve the pricing of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Dillon-Ferris’s features to Miller and Stein with the motivation to better match buyers and sellers of items (Dillon-Ferris [0016]).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller, Stein, and Dillon-Ferris and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 9, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Dillon-Ferris discloses wherein the instructions further instruct the at least one processor to extend the auction close time based on the one or more asset-popularity metrics (Dillon-Ferris claim 16.).
Each of Miller, Stein, and Dillon-Ferris involve the pricing of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Dillon-Ferris’s features to Miller and Stein with the motivation to better match buyers and sellers of items (Dillon-Ferris [0016]).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller, Stein, and Dillon-Ferris and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 11625768 B2) in view of Stein et al. (US 20140195304 A1) and Darveau-Garneau (US 20100332306 A1).
As per claim 7, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Darveau-Garneau discloses herein the one or more asset-popularity metrics include whether the bidder has previously placed a bid on the asset during the online auction (Darveau-Garneau [0044]. E.g., buy it now price updated based on bid placed by bidder.).
Each of Miller, Stein, and Darveau-Garneau involve the pricing of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Darveau-Garneau’s features to Miller and Stein with the motivation to beneficially allow bidders to purchase items at fair market value (Darveau-Garneau [0035]).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller, Stein, and Darveau-Garneau and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 20, Miller in view of Stein discloses the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however Darveau-Garneau discloses herein the one or more asset-popularity metrics include whether the bidder has previously placed a bid on the asset during the online auction (Darveau-Garneau [0044]. E.g., buy it now price updated based on bid placed by bidder.).
Each of Miller, Stein, and Darveau-Garneau involve the pricing of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Darveau-Garneau’s features to Miller and Stein with the motivation to beneficially allow bidders to purchase items at fair market value (Darveau-Garneau [0035]).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller, Stein, and Darveau-Garneau and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 11625768 B2) in view of D’Arcy (US 20250095058 A1).
As per claim 10, Miller discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however D’Arcy discloses wherein the instructions further instruct the at least one processor to determine whether the bidder has access to the immediate-purchase option based on authenticating at least one of financial information, identity information, or closing documentation of the bidder (D’Arcy [0033]).
Both Miller and D’Arcy are directed to auctioning items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add D’Arcy’s features to Miller with the motivation to provide bidders with improved purchase opportunities and experiences (D’Arcy [0004]).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller and D’Arcy and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 11, Miller in view of D’Arcy discloses the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however D’Arcy discloses wherein the financial information includes documentation indicating the bidder's ability to pay the immediate-purchase price (D’Arcy [0033]).
Both Miller and D’Arcy are directed to auctioning items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add D’Arcy’s features to Miller with the motivation to provide bidders with improved purchase opportunities and experiences (D’Arcy [0004]).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller and D’Arcy and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 12, Miller discloses the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however D’Arcy discloses wherein the documentation includes bank account information indicative of an amount of money currently held by the bidder in a bank account (D’Arcy [0033]).
Both Miller and D’Arcy are directed to auctioning items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add D’Arcy’s features to Miller with the motivation to provide bidders with improved purchase opportunities and experiences (D’Arcy [0004]).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller and D’Arcy and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 13, Miller discloses the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Miller may not explicitly disclose, however D’Arcy discloses wherein the documentation includes loan information indicative of an amount of money available to the bidder as a pre-approved loan (D’Arcy [0033]).
Both Miller and D’Arcy are directed to auctioning items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add D’Arcy’s features to Miller with the motivation to provide bidders with improved purchase opportunities and experiences (D’Arcy [0004]).
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art of Miller and D’Arcy and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
Applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFF ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 2:00 pm.
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 Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
JEFF ZIMMERMAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights