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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received September 29, 2025. No Claim(s) have been canceled. No Claims have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-19 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application 14495772 filed 09/24/2014 and having 5 RCE-type filing therein Claims Priority from Provisional Application 620244339 , filed 07/14/2014 14495772 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 61946563 , filed 02/28/2014 14495772 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 61906395 , filed 11/19/2013; 14495772 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 61906396 , filed 11/19/2013; 14495772 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 61881927 , filed 09/24/2013; 14495772 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62054854 , filed 09/24/2014
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that in the rebuttal response the examiner disregards the guidance of DDR Holding by determining that use of any known computer language renders computer software patent ineligible.. Applicant argues that DDR found use of modification of conventional protocol (data structure). Applicant argues that the previous Office action ignores the law by stating that the modification of protocol of DDR is not analogous to the current limitations as both DDR and the current limitations modify conventional protocol/data structures. Applicant points to the specification para 0038, 00150 which discloses a standard SQL (or structured query language) command instruction code for manipulating data into a structure for storage by a computer. Applicant argues that the claimed limitations uniquely claim data structure having unique features and cannot be dismissed as conventional. The office actions response of citing SQL textbook and related literature with the declaration that the use of SQL command is conventional is rendering all software limitations conventional. Applicant argues the previous Office Action ignores the machine test requirements for patent eligibility and fails to take into account the specific machine claimed which its specific architecture and software components. Applicant argues the previous Office action does not meet the Berkheimer requirements as the previous Office action under 2B does not address the significant computer architecture and software claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicant. DDR Holdings did not find patent eligibility by simple modification of conventional protocol. DDR Holdings found patent eligibility because the specific modification of conventional protocol provided a technical solution to a problem rooted specifically in technology where conventional activation of hyperlink protocol was being rerouted to a site imitating the intended web page with the look and feel of host website. Furthermore, in computer technology protocol is not analogous to data structure. The common use of SQL is for performing operations of querying data, inserting, updating and deleting records. The creating/generating of investment data into data structure is simple applying instructions to manipulate data into data structure for use in organizing and storing data in a computer so that it can be accessed and used, which focuses on procedures to manipulate data, whereas protocols define how data is sent, received and processed ensuring different technologies and components of the network are compatible with one another. The data structure as claimed create/manipulate and generate one or a different number of investment vehicle shares as data structure records for storage or use in a transaction process “via” SQL command at a high level. The creating/generating of data structure as claimed is not, as found in DDR Holdings providing a technical solution to a problem rooted in technology, instead the claim limitations recite the creation/generation of data structures in order to store data records and/or to facilitate a transaction where the creation/generation of the data structure is implemented using high level generic SQL commands. With respect to the machine test argument, the test has been incorporated into the step 2 process for determining patent eligibility and therefore, a machine transformation test has been applied. The SQL commands as claimed are not unconventional as the limitation applied the SQL commands to simply create/generate data structures for use by a computer for storage and in the facilitation of transactions. The plurality of claimed component collections in a memory are recited with high level functions for an expected outcome in the transaction process claimed. With respect to Berkheimer memo the examiner points to at least para 0024-0025 which provides evidence and cites specifics of the specification. The examiner maintains DDR Holdings is not applicable and that the claimed limitations are not directed toward providing a technical solution to a problem rooted in technology or a particular machine. The examiner refers applicant back to the previous rebuttal of Office Action dated 03/27/2025 as applicant is repeating arguments presented in the previous Office Action. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art references fail to teach creating closed-end investment vehicle data structure …generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure record. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the prior art Gasteneau teaches data that is stored in tables as structured text, tables is not data structures, but fails to teach generating …data structures. Applicant argues that the previous Office admits that the prior art Bendel does not teach applying SQL commands for generating data structure records. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Gastineau teaches the trading system provides exchange traded fund creation and redemption structure (Col 5 lines 59-64) and teaches creating share orders (col 7 lines 1-15) and teaches the financial instruments in order to accommodate the trading process include changes in order formats, structures and processes (Col 7 lines 21-25) and teaches the trading processes accommodates in the exchange order formats, structures and processes (Col 19 lines 22-27). The prior art Bengal teaches program code instruction segments where operational data may be identified within modules embodied in any suitable form and organized within any suitable data structure where the data may be collected as a single data set (col 9) and teaches software elements implemented with any program language such as SQL stored procedures or any combination with various algorithms being implemented with any combination of data structures, processes or other programming elements.(Col 10). The combination teaches the claimed limitations of generating trading data into data structures using SQL code. The rejection is maintained.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to claims 1
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include an apparatus, as in independent Claim 1. Such apparatus fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) functions which include 1) instantiate …investment vehicle…; 2) create…data structure; 3) determine …value…; 4) determine…price…5) generate share records….6) obtain…purchase request…7) generate …investment shares … 8) determine share price 9) facilitate a transaction 10) obtain…request… 11) generate…shares, 12) facilitating a redemption which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of sales activities. This concept is enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a processor at a system to preform functions (1) instantiate investment vehicle structure- a transaction process (2) create…investment vehicle data structure…- creation of an investment file for storage a common business practice (3) determine…plurality of shares and values…- a transaction process (4) determine …price…- a common business practice (5) generate…shares …records…- a common business practice (6) obtain purchase request- a transaction process (7) generate shares records-a common business practice (8) determine price- transaction process (9) facilitate transaction- transaction process (10) obtain redemption request -transaction process (11) generate shares- transaction process and (12) facilitating a redemption- transaction process. The functions (create, determine, obtain, generate and facilitate) are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Limitation 1 is directed toward representing a contract. Limitations 3-12 are directed toward a common business practice of creating financial instruments and records. Limitations 3, 4 and 10 are directed toward comparing data, limitations 6 and 10 are directed toward obtaining request for a transaction which is a common business practice. Limitation 10 is directed toward a common business practices of facilitating a transaction. The wherein clause of limitation 5 and 11-12 do not affect the operation of the limitations 5 and 11-12, but instead is data for consideration in the limitation. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter is directed toward as a combination a transaction process and fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The method claims simply recite the concept of performing a transaction by obtaining a purchase request, determining values/price, creating share records and facilitating a transactions. To be directed toward obtaining a transaction request for financial instruments, pricing and facilitating transactions and not technological operations
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to facilitate a transaction. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine function for performing the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any “unconventional” steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include an apparatus comprising a memory, component collection in the memory and at least one processor in communication with the memory executing instructions in the component collection to perform the functions of “instantiate …investment vehicle…”, “create…data structure”, “determine …value…”, “determine…price…”, “generate share records….”, “obtain…purchase request…”, “generate …investment shares …”, “determine share price”, “facilitate a transaction”, “obtain…request…”, “generate…shares” and “facilitates transactions” by at a high level of functionality ----are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer elements are generic, routine and conventional. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a processor to perform a transaction process with conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “instantiate, create, determine, generate, obtain and facilitate ' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
Finally, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because they are simply an attempt to apply the well-known, routine and conventional steps to a conventional, not a particular technological environment (see Enfish (2016)), specifically: a computer system that encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, and industry standard data structure (i.e. closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a data structure record’) The use of SQL commands as recited in the claims and discussed in the specification, to create a data structure record is not an inventive concept that goes beyond well-understood, routine and conventional computer processes. The specification recites the SQL command as a code for accessing and inserting records in a database (see para 0038, para 0166). Nowhere does the specification recite any process as it relates to the invention directed toward creating, pricing and selling a financial instrument that correlates with the use of SQL commands to select, access and insert records that can be found to be beyond the industry standard. Rather the specification recites (para 0166) “Upon identifying an incoming communication, the PHP script may read the incoming message from the client device, parse the received JSON-encoded text data to extract information from the ]SON-encoded text data into PHP script variables, and store the data ( e.g., client identifying information, etc.) and/ or extracted information in a relational database accessible using the Structured Query Language ("SQL"). An exemplary listing, written substantially in the form of PHP/SQL commands, to accept ]SON-encoded input data from a client device via a SSL connection, parse the data to extract variables, and store the data to a database, is provided below…” The examiner provides evidence that such SQL commands as claimed are the industry standard. Specifically, the article “An Introduction to SQL” providing explicit evidence that SQL (i.e. command language ’’was adopted as an industry standard in 1986”. Therefore, since SQL command data structure language is the standard in the industry, the use of a command language SQL is conventional and well understood data structure.
Additional evidence includes: US Patent No. 5,909,570 by Webber- Col 2 lines 17-44 “ structured query language (ANSI SQL) has evolved to unify the accessing method. SQL provides a standard method of data accessing independent of specific database storage formats, …. SQL provides a useful mechanism to illustrate the functionality of the invention and a common point of reference and understanding. … SQL begins with … creating a script of SQL instructions 2 intended to retrieve or store information in database 7. The script is executed by a conventional SQL interpreter engine 3, which in turn initiates a series of database access requests 4. The database system 5 receives and processes the requests and physically accesses the data 6 from database “; US Patent No. 6,529,909 B1 by Bowman-Amuah –FIG. 69; “Achieving database access transparency requires the following: Standards Based SQL API--this approaches uses a single, standards based set of APIs to access any database, and includes the following technologies:… SQL Gateways provide a mechanism for clients to transparently access data in a variety of databases (e.g., Oracle, SYBASE, DB2), by translating SQL calls written using the format and protocols of the gateway server or primary server to the format and protocols of the target database...” Col 52 lines 5-34; US Pub No. 2012/0124075 A1 by Galluscio -Background (para 0004) “There are many conventional data processing systems known in the art. …. The phrase "syntactic interoperability" refers to the ability of two or more computing systems to communicate and exchange information. Syntactic interoperability is achieved using specified data formats and communication protocols. In general, eXtensible Markup Language (XML) standards and Structured Query Language (SQL) standards provide syntactic interoperability. …”; WO 2012/059816 A2 by Minborg – para 0004 “numerous legacy tools and applications which communicate with SQL databases. Adding to this are multiple third-party applications available for direct SQL usage. As a result, from a technical perspective, it is neither desirable nor feasible for organizations to deploy other databases than SQL. However, the SQL standard is relatively old….”; WO 2008/039502 A2 by Levine et al “creating an underlying dynamic data structure wherein data and instructions for implementing or encapsulating said initial set of resources or objects associated therewith are stored… a SQL command is executed that is passed as a parameter to the kernel … the kernel dynamically generates the … database. The kernel dynamically generates the …database by recursively retrieving the …database object records and executing the relevant constructor service scripts which reconstructs the … database and table structures and provides either a typical relational database view or by dynamically creating an instance of the database on the RDBMS server with typical SQL table create and table insert commands. …”( para 0122-0123)
The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “generating data structure via SQL command” operation is performed. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The specification discloses para 0038, para 00166 software code for SQL commands with exemplary listing written in the form of PHP/SQL commands to store record data in database and used to “generate offering record for storage” and discloses para 0126 generating queries in standard SQL, para 00159 discloses “employing standard development tools and languages” listing such standard languages which includes SQL commands…; para 00166 discloses “information in relational databased may be extracted and accessible using SQL with exemplary listing written in PHP/SQL commands to accept encoded input data. Accordingly the specification makes clear that standard SQL commands are applied for generating and storing records in databases which is conventional application of SQL commands. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
In reference to Claim 2
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include an apparatus, as in independent Claim 2. Such apparatus fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without
significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) functions which include 1) instantiate …investment vehicle…2) create…data structure 3) determine …value…; 4) determine…price… 5) generate share records… 6) obtain…purchase request… 7) provide number of investment shares 8), obtain second purchase request… 9) generate …second number of investment shares…10) determine price, and 11) generate records, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of sales activities. This concept is enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a processor at a system to preform functions (1) instantiate investment vehicle structure – a common business practice (2) create…investment vehicle data structure…- a business practice (3) determine…plurality of shares and values…- a transaction process (4) determine …price…- a common business practice (5) generate…shares …records…- a common business practice (6) obtain purchase request – a transaction process (7) provide investment shares- common business practice (8) obtain purchase request – a transaction process (9) generate records- common business practice (10) determine price – a transaction practice (11) generate records- a common business practice. The functions (create, determine, obtain, provide and generate) are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Limitation 1 is directed toward representing a contract. Limitation 2 are directed toward a common business practice of creating financial instruments and records. Limitations 3, 4 and 10 are directed toward comparing data, limitations 5, 7, 9 and 11 are directed toward obtaining creating records which is no more than data management which is a common business practice. The wherein clause of limitation 7, 9 and 11 do not affect the operation of the limitations 7, 9 and 11, but instead is data for consideration in the limitation. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter as a whole is directed toward a transaction process and fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The method claims simply recite the concept of performing a transaction by obtaining a purchase request, determining values/price, creating share records and providing records. To be directed toward obtaining a transaction request for financial instruments, pricing and providing records and not technological operations
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made for a purchase request. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine function for performing the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any “unconventional” steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include an apparatus comprising a memory, component collection and a processor executing instructions where the processor instantiate an investment vehicle, creates a record, determines plurality and value, determines price, generates records, obtains request, providing records by a high level functional process to perform a transaction ----are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer elements are generic, routine and conventional. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a processor to perform a transaction process with conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “instantiate, create, determine, generate, obtain and facilitate ' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
Finally, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because they are simply an attempt to apply the well-known, routine and conventional steps to a conventional, not a particular technological environment (see Enfish (2016)), specifically: a computer system that encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, and industry standard data structure (i.e. closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a data structure record’) The use of SQL commands as recited in the claims and discussed in the specification, to create a data structure record is not an inventive concept that goes beyond well-understood, routine and conventional computer processes. The specification recites the SQL command as a code for accessing and inserting records in a database (see para 0038, para 0166). Nowhere does the specification recite any process as it relates to the invention directed toward creating, pricing and selling a financial instrument that correlates with the use of SQL commands to select, access and insert records that can be found to be beyond the industry standard. Rather the specification recites (para 0166) “Upon identifying an incoming communication, the PHP script may read the incoming message from the client device, parse the received JSON-encoded text data to extract information from the ]SON-encoded text data into PHP script variables, and store the data ( e.g., client identifying information, etc.) and/ or extracted information in a relational database accessible using the Structured Query Language ("SQL"). An exemplary listing, written substantially in the form of PHP/SQL commands, to accept ]SON-encoded input data from a client device via a SSL connection, parse the data to extract variables, and store the data to a database, is provided below…” The examiner provides evidence that such SQL commands as claimed are the industry standard. Specifically, the article “An Introduction to SQL” providing explicit evidence that SQL (i.e. command language ’’was adopted as an industry standard in 1986”. Therefore, since SQL command data structure language is the standard in the industry, the use of a command language SQL is conventional and well understood data structure.
Additional evidence includes: US Patent No. 5,909,570 by Webber- Col 2 lines 17-44 “ structured query language (ANSI SQL) has evolved to unify the accessing method. SQL provides a standard method of data accessing independent of specific database storage formats, …. SQL provides a useful mechanism to illustrate the functionality of the invention and a common point of reference and understanding. … SQL begins with … creating a script of SQL instructions 2 intended to retrieve or store information in database 7. The script is executed by a conventional SQL interpreter engine 3, which in turn initiates a series of database access requests 4. The database system 5 receives and processes the requests and physically accesses the data 6 from database “; US Patent No. 6,529,909 B1 by Bowman-Amuah –FIG. 69; “Achieving database access transparency requires the following: Standards Based SQL API--this approaches uses a single, standards based set of APIs to access any database, and includes the following technologies:… SQL Gateways provide a mechanism for clients to transparently access data in a variety of databases (e.g., Oracle, SYBASE, DB2), by translating SQL calls written using the format and protocols of the gateway server or primary server to the format and protocols of the target database...” Col 52 lines 5-34; US Pub No. 2012/0124075 A1 by Galluscio -Background (para 0004) “There are many conventional data processing systems known in the art. …. The phrase "syntactic interoperability" refers to the ability of two or more computing systems to communicate and exchange information. Syntactic interoperability is achieved using specified data formats and communication protocols. In general, eXtensible Markup Language (XML) standards and Structured Query Language (SQL) standards provide syntactic interoperability. …”; WO 2012/059816 A2 by Minborg – para 0004 “numerous legacy tools and applications which communicate with SQL databases. Adding to this are multiple third-party applications available for direct SQL usage. As a result, from a technical perspective, it is neither desirable nor feasible for organizations to deploy other databases than SQL. However, the SQL standard is relatively old….”; WO 2008/039502 A2 by Levine et al “creating an underlying dynamic data structure wherein data and instructions for implementing or encapsulating said initial set of resources or objects associated therewith are stored… a SQL command is executed that is passed as a parameter to the kernel … the kernel dynamically generates the … database. The kernel dynamically generates the …database by recursively retrieving the …database object records and executing the relevant constructor service scripts which reconstructs the … database and table structures and provides either a typical relational database view or by dynamically creating an instance of the database on the RDBMS server with typical SQL table create and table insert commands. …”( para 0122-0123)
The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “generating data structure via SQL command” operation is performed. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The specification discloses para 0038, para 00166 software code for SQL commands with exemplary listing written in the form of PHP/SQL commands to store record data in database and used to “generate offering record for storage” and discloses para 0126 generating queries in standard SQL, para 00159 discloses “employing standard development tools and languages” listing such standard languages which includes SQL commands…; para 00166 discloses “information in relational databased may be extracted and accessible using SQL with exemplary listing written in PHP/SQL commands to accept encoded input data. Accordingly the specification makes clear that standard SQL commands are applied for generating and storing records in databases which is conventional application of SQL commands. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
In reference to Claim 3
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include processor-readable tangible medium, as in independent Claim 3. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without
significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) functions which include instantiate …investment vehicle…; create…data structure; determine …value…; determine…price…generating share records….obtain request…provide records, obtain…purchase request…, provide records, obtain request…generate …investment shares…determine price, and generate a transaction, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of sales activities. This concept is enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a processor at a system to preform functions (1) instantiate investment vehicle structure (2) create…investment vehicle data structure…(3) determine…plurality of shares and values…(4) determine …price…(5) generate…shares …records…(6) obtain purchase request (7) provide records (8) obtain purchase request (9) generate records (10) determine price (11) generate a transaction. The functions (create, determine, obtain, provide and generate) are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. Limitation 1 is directed toward representing a contract. Limitation 2 are directed toward a common business practice of creating financial instruments and records. Limitations 3, 4 and 10 are directed toward comparing data, limitations 5, 7and 9 are directed toward obtaining creating records which is no more than data management which is a common business practice, while limitation 11 is directed toward a financial transaction. The wherein clause of limitation 7, 9 and 11 do not affect the operation of the limitations 7, 9 and 11, but instead is data for consideration in the limitation. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The method claims simply recite the concept of performing a transaction by obtaining a purchase request, determining values/price, creating share records and providing records. To be directed toward obtaining a transaction request for financial instruments, pricing and providing records and not technological operations
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made for a purchase request. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine function for performing the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any “unconventional” steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a processor issuable instructions to instantiate an investment vehicle, creates a record, determines plurality and value, determines price, generates records, obtains request, providing records by a high level functional process to perform a transaction ----are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer elements are generic, routine and conventional. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a processor to perform a transaction process with conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “instantiate, create, determine, generate, obtain and facilitate ' ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
Finally, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because they are simply an attempt to apply the well-known, routine and conventional steps to a conventional, not a particular technological environment (see Enfish (2016)), specifically: a computer system that encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, and industry standard data structure (i.e. closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a data structure record’) The use of SQL commands as recited in the claims and discussed in the specification, to create a data structure record is not an inventive concept that goes beyond well-understood, routine and conventional computer processes. The specification recites the SQL command as a code for accessing and inserting records in a database (see para 0038, para 0166). Nowhere does the specification recite any process as it relates to the invention directed toward creating, pricing and selling a financial instrument that correlates with the use of SQL commands to select, access and insert records that can be found to be beyond the industry standard. Rather the specification recites (para 0166) “Upon identifying an incoming communication, the PHP script may read the incoming message from the client device, parse the received JSON-encoded text data to extract information from the ]SON-encoded text data into PHP script variables, and store the data ( e.g., client identifying information, etc.) and/ or extracted information in a relational database accessible using the Structured Query Language ("SQL"). An exemplary listing, written substantially in the form of PHP/SQL commands, to accept ]SON-encoded input data from a client device via a SSL connection, parse the data to extract variables, and store the data to a database, is provided below…” The examiner provides evidence that such SQL commands as claimed are the industry standard. Specifically, the article “An Introduction to SQL” providing explicit evidence that SQL (i.e. command language ’’was adopted as an industry standard in 1986”. Therefore, since SQL command data structure language is the standard in the industry, the use of a command language SQL is conventional and well understood data structure.
Additional evidence includes: US Patent No. 5,909,570 by Webber- Col 2 lines 17-44 “ structured query language (ANSI SQL) has evolved to unify the accessing method. SQL provides a standard method of data accessing independent of specific database storage formats, …. SQL provides a useful mechanism to illustrate the functionality of the invention and a common point of reference and understanding. … SQL begins with … creating a script of SQL instructions 2 intended to retrieve or store information in database 7. The script is executed by a conventional SQL interpreter engine 3, which in turn initiates a series of database access requests 4. The database system 5 receives and processes the requests and physically accesses the data 6 from database “; US Patent No. 6,529,909 B1 by Bowman-Amuah –FIG. 69; “Achieving database access transparency requires the following: Standards Based SQL API--this approaches uses a single, standards based set of APIs to access any database, and includes the following technologies:… SQL Gateways provide a mechanism for clients to transparently access data in a variety of databases (e.g., Oracle, SYBASE, DB2), by translating SQL calls written using the format and protocols of the gateway server or primary server to the format and protocols of the target database...” Col 52 lines 5-34; US Pub No. 2012/0124075 A1 by Galluscio -Background (para 0004) “There are