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 Final Office Action in response to communications received April 27, 2026. 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
Applicant Name/Assignee: Ramsee 1 LLC
Inventor(s): Rechtschaffen, Alan; Rechtschaffen, Miera
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted 04/27/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant maintains the 101 arguments set forth and addressed the in the previous Office Action submitted 11/26/2025. The examiner maintains the response of the Office Action submitted 11/26/2025.
In the remarks applicant points to the 2025 USPTO memo and 2024 101 guidance directed toward computer software inventions. Applicant describes the direction of the memos which cautioned against oversimplifying limitations, arguing the previous Office action ignores these directions by determining the technical implementations as “apply it”. Applicant points to the response of previous Office Action which determined the use of SQL as claimed as common use of the SQL instructions to interact with a database of performing conventional operations of creating/generating of data structures of investment data, querying data, inserting, updating and deleting records. Applicant further recites the analysis of the rejection under step 2A prong 2 arguing the previous Office Action oversimplifies the analysis of the additional elements using the “apply it” in the rejection. Applicant further points to MPEP 2106, MPEP 2106 II(C) and Berkheimer and that all “words” in a claim must be considered in judging patent eligibility in judging patent eligibility pointing to 2143.03. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that applicant does not explain what limitations go beyond merely applying technology to perform high level operations without technical details as to how the technology performs the operations to perform the abstract idea with an expected result. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to the Desjardins decision and the USPTO related 2025 memo regarding software inventions in combination with the clarifying guidance of the MPEP 2106. Applicant emphasizes the determination by the court “under the panel’s reasoning many AI innovations are potentially unpatentable-even if they are adequately described and non-obvious -because the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable “algorithm” and the remaining additional elements as “generic computer components” without adequate explanation …examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality” which is supported in the teaching of Enfish. Applicant argues that in light of Desjardins directed toward software application the current applicant needs consideration under these guidance as the current limitations are directed toward patent eligible technical subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In Desjardins, in the specification, the specification explicitly explains the issues with AI software and the solution to solve a problem rooted within the technology itself (the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in the machine learning models where a model loses knowledge of previously learned task when trained on new task). Whereas Enfish found patent eligibility in the improvement of conventional relational databases that store each entity in separate tables by storing all data entities in a single table with columns defined by rows in the same table allowing faster data look-ups, more efficient storage and flexible configuration improving computer functionality. This is not the case of the current application. The claimed software is merely applied as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. None of the limitation are directed toward solving a problem rooted in technology or to improve upon the capability/capacity of computer functions. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the previous Office Action ignores the DDR decision in the previous action, by pointing the previous Office Action dated 03/27/2025 response. Applicant points to the previous Office Action response that found conclusory statements by the applicant non-persuasive explaining DDR patent eligibility, which was not analogous to the current application. Applicant argues the previous analysis ignores the law by providing their own interpretation of DDR. This is because DDR is not limited to claims of that patent in suit, arguing that DDR modification of conventional protocol and compositing of user interfaces satisfies step 2A 2106 test in new protocol interface as significantly more. Applicant argues the previous Office action analysis that the use of computer language renders computer software ineligible fails to consider the law. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicant’s argument. The claim limitations of the current application where not found patent ineligible because software was combined into the limitations. The limitations where found patent ineligible because the software claimed was not directed toward addressing problems rooted within computer technology or software capability, was not directed toward improvement to computer technology or improving the functionality of software processes such as found in McRO but instead to apply technology to perform the abstract idea identified without significantly more. The mere existence of software to perform an abstract idea does not provide patent eligibility, according to Alice, limitations which provide a “field of use” or “apply it” technology with the abstract idea are not enough to qualify as significantly more. Applying software to perform an abstract idea where the operations are performed at a high level of generic functions, where the limitations fail to recite technological implementation details reciting only results desired is not sufficient. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues with respect to DDR holding recites the modification of conventional protocol is sufficient for patent eligibility. The previous Office Action analysis disregards the guidance of DDR as the claim limitations provide the “create closed end investment …data structure…generated via SQL command to create data structure record…generate though continuous public offering, a second number of …investment shares data structure records…the second number of the investment shares data structure records are …for insurance…generate …investment shares data structure records of the …investment vehicle data structure, pointing to figures 3A-B. Applicant points to the specification which recites SQL programming code for the generation of data structures for storage to a database. Applicant argues that based on the limitations above and the SQL programming code for generation of data structure similar to DDR modifies conventional protocol. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As evidenced in the previous Office action SQL commands used to create data structures for databases is not an improvement to the process for data structures, nor does the use of SQL commands provide significantly more than applying well known technology in its ordinary capacity. The claim limitations do not recite the use of SQL commands for generating/creating data structures in a manner which improves upon the process for generating structured data of data for use in a computer environment. Nor does the claim limitations or specification recited an unconventional technical process or use of SQL commands for generating data structures. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the patent office does not have authority to determines a specific SQL command as conventional, the command set forth in the specification is novel data structure that the prior art has failed to find prior art for. Applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. The claim limitations do not claim the SQL code recited in the claim. With respect to the determination that the SQL command code set forth in the specification, the analysis did not find the code itself conventional or non-conventional, the analysis found the code to be directed toward performing operations of SQL commands to be directed toward the conventional application of SQL commands to perform the operations of generating raw data into data structures for use in a computer processing environment. Furthermore, under 101, prior art is not a requirement. It is not necessary for the examiner to find the exact SQL command sequence in order to determine that the command itself is directed toward the performance of conventional SQL data structure generation of data objects. What is required is to provide evidence that it is prevalent in the computer programming to apply SQL command in order to generate data structures. The previous Office Action meets that requirement. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the previous Office action determination that the claimed operations performed by the claimed modules/software is “recited at a high level of generality” fails to find any relevant art yet still determines that the data structures are conventional. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Prior art is not a requirement of 101. With respect to conventional determination in the analysis of the previous Office action, the analysis pointed to MPEP as it relates to insignificant extra solution activity and well understood process which include “receiving or transmitting data” and “electronic recordkeeping” lacking technical disclosure to be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. With respect to the SQL commands was found to be results oriented solution with insufficient details for how the computer accomplishes it pointing to the specification para 0038, para 0166, para 0110, para 0125, para 0162 which itself recognizes that the use of SQL commands as a “standard language” (para 0159). The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant repeats the SQL arguments above listing additional responses of previous Office actions. Applicant points to Berkheimer arguing that is it improper to deem the unique components as generic making all software ineligible. The examiner disagrees with the premise of applicant’s argument. The previous analysis does not determine all software as patent ineligible. The previous Office action found the claimed software modules and SQL commands applied to generate data structures to be insufficient under step 2A prong 2, as the claimed software or claimed limitations are not directed toward improving upon any of the underlying technology or directed toward solving a problem rooted in the claimed technology or any other technology. The analysis did not find under step 2B that the claimed software performed unconventional technical processes or providing significantly more that merely providing the computer technology as a field of use for implementing the abstract idea or applying the technology for a conventional application to perform the creation of data structures from investment data for use in performing the abstract idea in a computer environment.
In the remarks applicant argues that under the analysis of 101, the Office Action MUST consider the machine or transformation test of Bilski as evidence of “significantly more”. The examiner respectfully disagrees that the previous Office Action did not consider Bilski or the updated form for analysis of the machine or transformation test. In the rebuttal the examiner explicitly set forth the machine or transformation test has been incorporated into the step 2 process for determining patent eligibility and therefore, a machine transformation test has been applied. The inputs received are electronic representation of data that is converted usually for computer into a computer readable format. The electronic matter representing data when converted to a computer readable format is still the same form of matter. With respect to the claim language itself the claim recites “generating a data structure via SQL command”. A data structure is merely a way a collection of data values is organized and stored in a computer. It is not the transformation of matter from one form to another. The application in the claims of basic SQL command language to organize and store data is merely using known technology in a manner it was designed to be applied for use in a trading process. It is not the transformation of matter. The examiner notes that the applicant does not point to any specific elements recited in the claim that provide a specific use machine to perform a specific function. The above arguments do not point to any transformation of matter.
There are two corollaries to the machine-or-transformation test.
First, a mere field-of-use limitation is generally insufficient to render an otherwise ineligible method claim patentable. This means the machine or transformation must impose meaningful limits on the method's claim's scope to pass the test.
Second, insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. displaying data content and communicating a transaction) will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.
This means reciting a specific machine or a particular transformation of a specific article or material does not include insignificant steps, such as data gathering or outputting. This is not sufficient to pass the test. If neither of these requirements are met by the claim, the method is not a patent eligible claim under 35 USC 101 and is non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed subject matter is not directed toward providing a specific use machine but rather directed toward creating investment vehicle data structure by determining economic parameters in order to issue investment shares according to parameters with specific investment components. As stated above this test is incorporated in the step 2A prong 2 analysis.
In the remarks applicant points to the MEM module emphasizes the use of the MEM to transform share purchases, redemption request inputs into closed end fund share transaction as described in the specification (para 0018, para 0123; FIG. 9), arguing the specification shows a practical application integrated as disclosed under the USPTO 2019 memo, MPEP 2106.05(b) into a unique specific machine module/components structures with precise computer systemization, logic process flow, datagraph and user interface figures. Applicant argues that the previous Office action is not accurate in the rejection of all software applications ignoring claim limitations when evaluating to scope of the claim where every limitation/words in the claim must be considered. Applicant recites the previous Office Action applicant arguments and examiner responses, repeating the argument that the previous actions ignore claim limitation including claim limitations, claimed actionable data structures by determining in the analysis that the claimed MEM and corresponding components represent field-of-use limitations or insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to the MEM claimed, recites MEM hardware/software combination performing generic computer functions in order to perform a transaction process. The functions of generating, obtaining, determining and creating----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 at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using any technical means to perform a transaction process with conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses Nowhere does the specification recite any process as it relates to the invention directed toward creating, pricing and selling a financial instrument that correlates to a particular technical process. The specification identifies “datastruture” as “the MEM database may be implemented using various standard data-structures, such as an array, hash, (linked) list, struct, structured text file (e.g., XML), table, 24 and/ or the like.” (para 0137).
[0038]In another implementation, as further discussed in FIGURES 3A-3B, the closed-end MEM fund may continuously issue new shares for the user's purchase, or redeem the shares. For example, the user/user device may submit a MEM share purchase and/ or redeem request 206b (which may take a data structure similar to that of 203) to the MEM server 210, which may continue to issue new shares for the user to purchase, and/ or redeem the user's shares. In one implementation, the MEM server 210 may generate a share offering record 213 for storage in the MEM database. For example, the share offering may be provided on a periodic basis, one-time only, and/ or the like.
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. The application of SQL commands to manipulate investment data into structure data is mere data manipulation.
[An exemplary listing, written substantially in the form of PHP /SQL commands, to store the transaction record data 235 to the LPC database, is provided below:
<?PHP
header( 'Content-Type: text/plain');
II store input data in a database
mysql_connect ( "201. 408. 185. 132", $LPC_se rve r, $password); I I access database server
mysql_select("MEM_DB.SQL"); II select database to append
mysql_query("INSERT INTO ShareRecordTable (timestamp, purchase_summary_list, fund_id, share_num, share_type, share_price, share_fund_sector, share_name, share_ETF_type, user, account_name, account_type, account_num, billing_addres, zipcode, phone, sign, auth_key)
VALUES ($timestamp, $purchase_summary_list, $fund_id, $share_num, $share_type,
$share_price, $share_fund_sector, $share_name, $share_ETF_type, $user,
$account_name, $account_type, $account_num, $billing_addres, $zipcode, $phone,
$sign, $auth_key); II add data to TRadingLogTable table in a CLIENT database
mysql_close( "LPC_DB. SOL"); 11 close connection to database
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references fail to teach “create a closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command creating a singular data structure record”. Applicant argues that the prior art references do not teach “generating…data structure”, but instead teaches tables. Applicant provides a plurality of recitations of responses from previous Office action in response to applicant’s argument. Applicant argues that the previous Office action recite nonsensical citations failing to point out how they related to the combination of Gastineau, Gatineau682 and Bendal. Applicant argues the previous Office action that the prior art teaches of Gastineau teaching of tables does not suggest the generation of data structures, because Gastineau never mentions the term “datastructure”. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicant’s argument. According to MPEP 2145, IV, Applicant arguing against prior art references individually is not a show of non-obviousness with the rejection is based on a combination of the references. The prior art Gastineau explicitly teaches that data can be in table format. The claim limitations do not limit the generated data structures into any specific structure, the limitation only requires that the data structures are generated. Although the applicant attempts to argues that tables are not structured data and relational tables are not structured data, table are not unstructured data and are not inputted into tabular form. Tables are a generated data structure. The prior art Gastineau682 explicitly teaches creating closed end investment vehicles where the trading process accommodates order formats, structures and processors (FIG. 3. Wherein the prior art illustrates share class relationships). Data structures are classified into two categories – linear (array, stack, queue) and non-linear (trees, graphs, tables, lists, vectors, index). The prior art references in combination with Bendel teaches in combination a module/program of code where data is identified and may be embodied into any suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure (Col 9 lines 54-60, Col 10 lines 32-49). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant has not explained why the combination of the prior art references is unreasonable given the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references specifically Bendel fail to teach data structures or the generating of a data structure record or closed-end investment vehicle data structure. The previous Office Action waives away all software and all datastructures as being any combination of programming elements. Applicant argues the prior art reference Bendel fails to teach generating via SQL closed end investment vehicle data structure. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art Gastineau, Gastineau682 and Bendal teaches the generation of closed-end vehicle data structures. The prior art references Gastineau and Gastineau682 do not teach formatting data SQL data structures, the prior art does teach generating investment vehicles which are stored and that such data can be stored in tables and does teach formatting data (Gastineau -Col 7 lines 55-60) and other formats (see previous Office Action para 62 page 65 where the Office action provides analysis of Gastineau682 structuring data for a plurality of purposes citing Col 30 page 65, page 63, page 66, page 72, page 75-76, page 85, page 87, page 88 para 78, page 88, page 94-95, page 97 and other citations). The prior art Gastineau682 in combination with Bendel teaches applying modules and programs of executable code embodied to organized and in any suitable type of data structure in a transaction processing system where the software elements may be implemented with programming script include SQL Stored procedures (Col 9-10). The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that the previous Office Action ignores the plain meaning of the term “generated” and how used throughout the specification. The SQL procedure in the prior art references are stored not generated. Applicant provides the definition of the “generate” which is the production or cause for something to come about whereas storage retrieves an already pre-existing item. Therefore, Bendal teaches away from generation of SQL command. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicant’s argument. The prior art Gastineau682 explicitly teaches trade data formatted in formats for investment processes and generating closed end investment vehicles. The prior art Bendel teaches applying modules and programs of executable code embodied to organized and in any suitable type of data structure in a transaction processing system where the software elements may be implemented with programming script include SQL Stored procedures (Col 9-10). SQL stored is not the storage of preexisting generated data structures, SQL stored procedures are a precompiled set of SQL commands where instead of repeated writing the same SQL queries/command as a procedure you can save the SQL commands and execute the command by name allowing faster execution. Accordingly the limitation term “SQL stored” of the prior art is analogous to “via “SQL” as claimed, since the limitations merely require the process “via SQL” and does not require writing of the SQL commands. The prior art Bendel teaches explicitly the applying modules and programs scripts of executable code embodied to organized and in any suitable type of data structure in a transaction processing system where the software elements may be implemented with programming script include SQL Stored procedures. Accordingly the examiner disagrees that the prior art teaches away from the claimed limitations. As evidence of what SQL stored procedures are the examiner provides NPL chapter 7-8 of the book “Access to SQL server” by Sinclair Chapter 9 of the book The programmer’s Guide to SQL by Darie et al as evidence.
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 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 4
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include system, as in independent Claim 4. Such systems 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 means to 1) store component collection 2) process instruction 3) initiate investment data structure 4) create investment vehicle 5) determine shares for investment 6) determine share price 7) generate plurality of investment share data 8) obtain purchase request, 9) provide records, 10) obtain second purchase request, 11) generate second records, 12) determine share price, 13) generate transaction 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 a transaction process which is found in the 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) store component collection- common application of technology 2) process instruction- common application of technology 3) initiate investment data structure – a transaction process 4) create investment vehicle– a transaction process 5) determine shares for investment – a transaction process 6) determine share price – a transaction process 7) generate plurality of investment share data– a transaction process 8) obtain purchase request– a transaction process, 9) provide records – a transaction process, 10) obtain second purchase request – a transaction process, 11) generate second records – a transaction process, 12) determine share price – a transaction process, 13) generate transaction records – a transaction process. 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 and 9 are directed toward obtaining creating records which is no more than data management which is a common business practice. Limitation 11 is directed toward a transaction 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 combination and 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 in light of the specification to provide a means can be found para 0108 and illustrated in FIG. 9.
Which recite a generic MEM hardware/software combination performing generic computer functions in order to perform a transaction process. The functions of generating, obtaining, determining and creating----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 at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using any technical means 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: means function has not been tied to any particular function or structure of the disclosure. Therefore, any structure or programming may be applied to implement the means. 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.
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 See FIG. 4; para 0108). Nowhere does the specification recite any process as it relates to the invention directed toward creating, pricing and selling a financial instrument that correlates to a particular technical process. 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.
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 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 5
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include method, as in independent Claim 5. Such methods fall under the statutory category of “process" 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) instantiating investment vehicle structure, 2) creating investment data file 3) determining shares and values, 4) determining share price, 5) generating investment shares 6) obtaining purchase request 7) providing share records, 8) obtaining second purchase request, 9) generating second number of share records 10) determining share price, 11) generating transaction of second number of transaction share records, 12) obtaining redemption request and 13) generating 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 perform functions 1) instantiating investment vehicle structure- a transaction activity, 2) creating investment data file- a transaction activity 3) determining shares and values-a transaction activity, 4) determining share price- transaction activity, 5) generating investment shares-transaction activity 6) obtaining purchase request-transaction activity 7) providing share records-transaction activity, 8) obtaining second purchase request -transaction activity 9) generating second number of share records -transaction activity 10) determining share price-transaction activity, 11) generating transaction of second number of transaction share records -transaction activity 12) obtaining redemption request -transaction activity and 13) generating transaction -transaction activity
The functions are 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 and 9 are directed toward obtaining creating records which is no more than data management which is a common business practice. Limitation 11 is directed toward a transaction 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 combination and as a whole is directed toward a transaction activity and therefore, 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 executable instructions via a processor from a component collection stored 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 JSON-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 JSON-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. 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.
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 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 claims 6-18:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include method, as in independent Claim 6 and dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of “process" 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 -sales activity (2) create…investment vehicle data structure…-sales activity (3) determine…plurality of shares and values…-sales activity (4) determine …price…-sales activity (5) generate…shares …records…-sales activity (6) obtain purchase request -sales activity (7) provide records -sales activity (8) obtain purchase request -sales activity (9) generate records -sales activity (10) determine price -sales activity (11) generate a transaction -sales activity. 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 when considered as a combination or 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.
Although the claim recites in the preamble a processor implemented method, the body of the claim is not tied to any technology. The claim limitations do not recite any additional elements beyond the abstract idea as the claim limitations do not include any technology or technological structure or technical process. Accordingly technology is not an integral part of the invention. 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.
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).
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 remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 7-18 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 6. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 6. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 7-18 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claim 19:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include apparatus, as in independent Claim 19. Such systems 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 structure (2) create…investment vehicle data structure…(3) determine…plurality of shares and values…(4) 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- a sales activity (2) create…investment vehicle data structure - a sales activity …(3) determine…plurality of shares and values…- a sales activity (4) generate a transaction…- a sales activity are 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 is directed toward comparing data, Limitation 4 is directed toward a transaction which is a common business practice. 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 combination and as a whole is directed toward a transaction 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 processor, a memory, with the processor executing instructions instantiate an investment vehicle, creates a record, determines plurality and performs a transaction by any technical means ----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 and generate transaction' ... 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. The use of a data structure for records is not an inventive concept that goes beyond well-understood, routine and conventional computer processes. 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.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015
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 specification in para 0110, para 0125, para 0162 discloses known computer structures where the components are consolidated into a common code that are capable of performing the processes claimed.
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)
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,452,682 B1 by Gastineau (Gastineau 682) and further in view of US Patent No. 8,589,269 B1 by A1 by Bendel (Bendel)
In reference to Claim 4:
Gastineau 682 teaches:
(Currently Amended) A non-transparent investment vehicle management system ((Gastineau 682) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 17; Col 51 lines 63-Col 52 lines 1-25, Col 53 lines 1-32), comprising:
means to store a component collection ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 52 lines 7-67):
means to process processor-executable instructions from the component collection, the component collection storage structured with processor-executable instructions ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 52 lines 7-67) including:
instantiate a closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 1; Col 5 lines 39-64, Col 7 lines 1-44, lines 47-67 wherein the prior art teaches trading process includes changes in order formats, structures and processes, Col 19 lines 10-27 wherein the prior art teaches trading process accommodates in the exchange order formats, structures and processes, Col 22 lines 3-28, Col 26 lines 46-58, Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29);
create a closed-end investment vehicle in compliance of regulatory registration requirement ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 3. Col 5 lines 39-64, Col 6 lines 61-Col 7, Col 19 lines 10-27 wherein the prior art teaches trading process accommodates in the exchange order formats, structures and processes, Col 22 lines 3-28, Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29);
determine a plurality of investment shares for the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 1, FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-19, Col 7 lines 1-15, Col 7 lines 21-25, Col 10 lines 62-Col 11 lines 1-35);
determine a share price for the plurality of the investment shares ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 8; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-20, Col 14 lines 63-67, Col 15 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 48-67, Col 24 lines 19-28, Col 28 lines 61-Col 29 lines 1-52);
generate, through an initial public offering, the plurality of investment shares data structure records… of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which the plurality investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; Col 5 lines 59-64, Col 7 lines 1-15, Col 7 lines 21-25, Col 11 lines 22-64, Col 14 lines 45-55, lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-13, lines 58-col 16 lines 1-38, col 19 lines 22-27 wherein the prior art teaches trading process accommodates in the exchange order formats, structures and processes);
obtain a first purchase request for the investment shares of the closed end investment vehicle data structure from a market participant ((Gastineau682) in at FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 15-58, Col 27 lines 48-67);
provide a first number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which first number of the investment shares data structure records are structured for delivery to the market participant ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 23 lines 65-Col 24 lines 1-17);
obtain a second purchase request for the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure subsequent to the first purchase request ((Gastineau682) in at FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 15-58, Col 27 lines 48-67);
generate, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which the second number of the investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; in at least FIG. 4; Col 1 lines 40-52 wherein the prior art teaches “The continuous auction market is the standard for most global securities and futures markets.”; Col 5 lines 59-64, Col 7 lines 1-15, Col 7 lines 21-25, Col 11 lines 22-64, Col 14 lines 45-55, lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-13, lines 58-col 16 lines 1-38, Col 19 lines 10-20 wherein the prior art teaches trading process accommodates in the exchange order formats, structures and processes, Closed lines 22 lines 3-28, Col 28 lines 14-23 “The computerized trading system stores not only the order for the financial instrument, but also any contingency upon which the order is stated. In additional embodiments, steps 1102, 1104, and 1106 may be repeated for additional parties that enter orders for the financial instrument stated in terms of price-based, volume-based, and/or NAV-based contingencies”; Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 36 lines 28-38 “ The interaction between traditional markets--e.g., the continuous auction market--and NAV-based secondary market trading can directly reduce some of the market maker's risks and enrich their opportunities for risk management. If a traditional continuous auction market is the only organized market for an exchange-traded fund, the market maker focuses on the contemporary bids and offers in that market throughout the trading session and manages its inventory primarily by hedging price risk”; Col 36 lines 58-Col 37 lines 1-33);
determine share price of the second number of the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on market price ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 8; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-20, Col 14 lines 63-67, Col 15 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 48-67, Col 24 lines 19-28, Col 28 lines 61-Col 29 lines 1-52); and
generate a transaction of the second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on the determined share price in which the second number of the investment share data structure records are structured facilitating a transactions ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 10; Col 26 lines 15-67, Col 27 lines 1-47)
Gastineau 682 teaches structuring data in order to organize data for a plurality of purposes with respect analyzing data for trading transaction (for example to related share classes; structuring data in order to compare estimates; to outline types of transactions; to correlate investment securities to specific symbols of the security; …see in at least Col 11 lines 65-Col 12, Col 18, Col 19 lines 22-27, Col 22 lines 28-Col 23 lines 1-30, Col 25, Col 30, Col 38-41, Col 44-45, Col 47-48).
Gastineau682 fails to teach:
via SQL command
Bendel teaches:
generate, through an initial public offering, the plurality of investment shares data structure records via SQL command of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which the plurality investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 24-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, SML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-20, lines 28-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23)
The prior art Bendel teaches applying the modules and programming for stock issuance (create investment vehicles). The teaching of Bendel Col 9-10 teaches applying modules and program code where the operational data may be embodied in any “suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure” as those skilled in the art will appreciate the use of “conventional support software typically associated with computers…where such functional blocks realized by software components to perform specified functions …software elements may be implemented with any programming/scripting language such as SQL stored procedures…employing any number of conventional techniques. The prior art Bendel provides explicit evidence that the use of SQL language for storing procedures is known to one of ordinary skill in the art and conventional as well that operational data may be a single data set the data may be any suitable type of data structure. The prior art explicitly teaches that such programming elements are applied to employ functions and routines to perform the operations discussed in the reference. These operations include the issuance of financial instructions.
The prior art Bendel teaches that SQL command language can be implemented with any combination of data structures and teaches in Col 8 that purpose of the publication is “the generation and transfer of paper stock certificates as part of the computer based method of the present disclosure.” And teaches by incorporation of reference paper stock certificates can include as recited in col 14 “The exchange-traded shares may be issued by an open-end mutual fund, a closed-end mutual fund, or a unit investment trust” Both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach creating and redeeming trading investment vehicles.
Bendel teaches the motivation of applying modules and program code where the operational data may be embodied in any “suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure” as those skilled in the art will appreciate the use of “conventional support software typically associated with computers…where such functional blocks realized by software components to perform specified functions …software elements may be implemented with any programming/scripting language such as SQL stored procedures…employing any number of conventional techniques and teaches that it is known for investment companies to issue closed-end and other forms of investment vehicles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify Gastineau682 to include conventional coding and data structures for the issuance of closed end investment vehicles as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation of Bendel teaches the motivation of applying modules and program code where the operational data may be embodied in any “suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure” as those skilled in the art will appreciate the use of “conventional support software typically associated with computers…where such functional blocks realized by software components to perform specified functions …software elements may be implemented with any programming/scripting language such as SQL stored procedures…employing any number of conventional techniques and teaches that it is known for investment companies to issue closed-end and other forms of investment vehicles.
With respect to the SQL command data structure record limitation, both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach data formatted for processing data in a market exchange. Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify Gastineau682 data formatting and storage algorithms to include SQL storage procedures and algorithms as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,496,531 B1 by Gastineau et al. (Gastineau), in view of US Patent No. 8,452,682 B1 by Gastineau (Gastineau 682) and further in view of US Patent No. 8,589,269 B1 by A1 by Bendel (Bendel)
In reference to Claim 4:
Gastineau teaches:
(Previously Presented) An exchange traded fund tracking and matching apparatus ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 1, FIG. 16; Col 40 lines 10-63), comprising:
at least one memory ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 16; Col 40 lines 21-43);
a component collection in the at least one memory ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 2B ref # 60; FIG. 3 ref # 100; FIG. 4; Fig. 9, FIG, 14; wherein the prior art illustrates Share calculation; FIG. 6-7; Col 13 lines 20-60, Col 14 lines 14-55, Col 15 lines 1-28, Col 16 lines 23-65, Col 18 lines 1-65, Col 21 lines 52-58, Col 22 lines 1-18, Col 26 lines 15-26, Col 37 lines 20-43)
at least one processor disposed in communication with the at least one memory, the at least one processor executing processor executable instructions from the component collection storage structured with processor-executable instructions ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 1, FIG. 2B, FIG. 3-8, FIG. 9, FIG. 10-14, FIG. 16; Col 40-Col 41 lines 1-7);
instantiate a ... investment vehicle configuration structure [format] ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 3-4; Col 9 lines 45-49 (“wherein the order entry format is modified to minimize systems changes needed to accommodate price-contingent or volume contingent trades.”); Col 17 lines 64-Col 18, Col 22 lines 1-19, Col 26 lines 15-26, Col 26 lines 27-34 (“wide range of financial instruments, trading techniques, and trading processes may be accommodated with changes in exchange order formats, structures, and processes with the common element being a settlement price, a trade volume, or any combination of a settlement price and a trade volume to be determined in the future.), Col 26 lines 42-63 (“execution formats and processes may be characterized by settlement terms that are determined by future trading prices, future trading volumes, future NAY calculations, or some other variable or combination of variables that sets the trade's specifications and settlement provisions once the determining variables have been calculated. … Also, other execution formats and processes applicable to the present invention will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts based on the teachings contained herein”; Col 37 lines 55-Col 38 lines 1-7 (“the parties use standard order formats and procedures characteristic of exchange trading,”)
create a ... investment vehicle data structure [order/composite file] ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 3-4; Col 17 lines 64-Col 18, Col 22 lines 1-19, Col 26 lines 15-63) wherein the ... investment vehicle data structure is generated ... to create a singular data structure record ((Gastineau) in at least Col 7 wherein the prior art teaches the fund shares are created when deposits of creation baskets consists of securities as a portfolio composition file; Col 13 lines 20-42 wherein the prior art teaches creating orders, Col 14 lines 35-45 wherein the prior art teaches generation of orders and generation of instructions for custodian and transfer functions, Col 26 lines 27-35 wherein the prior art teaches order formats, structures and processes, Col 37 lines 60-67, Col 30 lines 25-67 wherein the prior art teaches order expressed in an appropriate convention would fix the size field for trades, Col 32 lines 5-13 wherein the prior art teaches use data field to designate data fields); …
determine, via at least one processor ,a plurality of investment shares and a net asset value for the ... investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 1, FIG. 2B, FIG. 3-4; FIG. 8-9; FIG. 14; Col 2 lines 65-Col 3 lines 1-10, Col 3 lines 35-60, Col 14 lines 14-45, Col 19 lines 1-25, Col 21 lines 52-58, Col 22 lines 1-18, Col 33 lines 10-25, Col 37 lines 20-43);
determine a share price for the plurality of the investment shares based on the net asset value of the ... investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 1, FIG. 2B, FIG. 4; FIG. 8; Col 2 lines 65-Col 3 lines 1-10, Col 3 lines 35-60, Col 19 lines 1-25, Col 33 lines 10-25, Col 37 lines 33-42)
generate,..., the plurality of investment shares data structure records of the ... investment vehicle data structure in which the plurality investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 3; FIG. 9; FIG. 14; Col 14 lines 14-45, Col 21 lines 52-58, Col 22 lines 1-18, Col 37 lines 20-43)
obtain a first purchase request for the investment shares of the ... investment vehicle data structure from a market participant ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 8, Col 24 lines 25-65, Col 33 lines 28-67, Col 34 lines 1-4);
generate a first number of the investment shares data structure records... for a first transaction of the ... investment vehicle data structure to the market participant ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 8-9, FIG. 10, Col 24 lines 25-65, Col 25 lines 1-25, Col 33 lines 49-Col 34 lines 1-17);
obtain a second purchase request for the investment shares of the ... investment vehicle data structure subsequent to the first purchase request ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 8, Col 24 lines 25-65, Col 33 lines 28-67, Col 34 lines 1-4);
generate, ...a second number of the investment shares data structure records... of the ... investment vehicle data structure in which the second number of the investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 3; FIG. 9; FIG. 14; Col 14 lines 14-45, Col 21 lines 52-58, Col 22 lines 1-18, Col 37 lines 20-43)Col 22 lines 1-15);
determine, via at least one processor, share price of the second number of the investment shares data structure records of the ... investment vehicle data structure based on market price ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 4; wherein the prior art illustrates Share calculation; FIG. 6-7; Col 18 lines 25-65);
facilitate a transaction of the second number of the investment shares data structure records of the ... investment data vehicle structure based on the determined share price ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 8-9, FIG. 10, Col 24 lines 25-65, Col 25 lines 1-25, Col 33 lines 49-Col 34 lines 1-17);
obtain, via at least one processor a redemption request from the market participant structured as redeeming a third number of the investment shares of the ... investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 2B ref # 60; FIG. 3 ref # 100; Col 3 lines 45-60, Col 12 lines 31-35, Col 13 lines 20-60, Col 14 lines 25-67, Col 15 lines 1-28, Col 16 lines 1-5, 23-65); and
generate, ...a third number of the investment shares data structure records of the ... investment vehicle data structure in which the third number of the investment share data structure records are structured a facilitating a redemption transaction for the market participant, in which the …investment vehicle data structure is structured for … purchase and redemption of any number of investment shares data structured records ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 2B ref # 60; FIG. 3 ref # 100; Col 13 lines 20-60, Col 14 lines 25-55, Col 15 lines 1-28, Col 16 lines 23-65),
Gastineau does not explicitly teach the term “data structure”:
data structure
data structure ..is generated via SQL command creating a singular data structure record
generate...and SQL command...data structure records…
generate data structure records via SQL command
generate a second number of …data structure records via SQL command
generate via SQL command a third number…data structure records
generate, through a continuous public offering
in which the closed-end investment data structure for continuous purchase and redemption of any number of investment share data structure records.
Gastineau 682 teaches and provides supporting evidence:
data structure ((Gastineau 682) in at least Col 5 lines 59-64, Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 11 lines 65-Col 12 wherein the prior art teaches data structure in table format that is generated, Col 19 lines 22-27 wherein the prior art teaches trading process accommodates in the exchange order formats, structures and processes).
Gastineau 682 is a continuation in part of Gastineau directed toward the same subject matter. Gastineau 682 teaches the motivation of structuring data in order organize data for a plurality of purposes with respect analyzing data for trading transaction (for example to related share classes; structuring data in order to compare estimates; to outline types of transactions; to correlate investment securities to specific symbols of the security; …). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify Gastineau to include spread components as taught by Gastineau 682 since Gastineau 682 teaches the motivation of structuring data in order organize data for a plurality of purposes with respect analyzing data for trading transaction (for example to related share classes; structuring data in order to compare estimates; to outline types of transactions; to correlate investment securities to specific symbols of the security; …) and since Gastineau 682 explicitly teaches that the subject matter is a continuation of Gastineau.
generate, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records ...of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau 682) in at least Col 1 lines 40-52 wherein the prior art teaches “The continuous auction market is the standard for most global securities and futures markets.”; Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 19 lines 10-27, Col 28 lines 14-23 “The computerized trading system stores not only the order for the financial instrument, but also any contingency upon which the order is stated. In additional embodiments, steps 1102, 1104, and 1106 may be repeated for additional parties that enter orders for the financial instrument stated in terms of price-based, volume-based, and/or NAV-based contingencies.”; Col 36 lines 28-38 “ The interaction between traditional markets--e.g., the continuous auction market--and NAV-based secondary market trading can directly reduce some of the market maker's risks and enrich their opportunities for risk management. If a traditional continuous auction market is the only organized market for an exchange-traded fund, the market maker focuses on the contemporary bids and offers in that market throughout the trading session and manages its inventory primarily by hedging price risk”; Col 19 lines 10-20, Closed lines 22 lines 3-28, Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29,Col 36 lines 58-Col 37 lines 1-33)
in which the closed-end investment data structure for continuous purchase and redemption of any number of investment share data structure records. ((Gastineau 682) in at least Col 1 lines 40-52 wherein the prior art teaches “the continuous auction market is the standard for most global securities and futures markets.”, Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 19 lines 10-27, Col 22 lines 3-28, Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 36 lines 28-38 “ The interaction between traditional markets--e.g., the continuous auction market--and NAV-based secondary market trading can directly reduce some of the market maker's risks and enrich their opportunities for risk management. If a traditional continuous auction market is the only organized market for an exchange-traded fund, the market maker focuses on the contemporary bids and offers in that market throughout the trading session and manages its inventory primarily by hedging price risk”; Col 36 lines 58-Col 37 lines 1-33)
Gastineau 682 is a continuation in part of Gastineau directed toward the same subject matter. Gastineau 682 teaches the motivation of tightening spread parameters in order to execute a trade as close as possible to a market close or to a specified net asset value. Gastineau682 teaches the motivation that continuous market activity is the standard. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify Gastineau to include spread components as taught by Gastineau 682 since Gastineau 682 teaches the motivation of tightening spread parameters in order to execute a trade as close as possible to a market close or to a specified net asset value and teaches the motivation that continuous market activity is the standard.
With respect to the limitation “closed-end investment vehicle”, The prior art Gastineau contained a financial vehicle which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a different financial vehicle with other financial vehicles. The prior art provides evidence that the substituted financial vehicle and their functions were known in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable
Bendel teaches:
generate a closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which the closed-end investment vehicle data determined, via SQL command creating a singular data structure record ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 15-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, XML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-20, lines 28-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23)
generate via SQL command the plurality of investment shares data structure records of the closed -end investment vehicle data structure, in which the plurality of investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 15-27, ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 24-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, SML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-20, lines 28-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23);
generate a first number of investment shares data structure records via SQL command, for a first transaction of closed-end investment data structure to the market participant ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 24-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, SML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust for transactions with market participants; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23)
generate, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records via SQL command, the closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which the second number of investment shares data records are structured for issuance ((Bendel) in at least abstract wherein the prior art teaches proceeds from public sales; Col 3 lines 39-67, Col 4 lines 1-8, Col 5 lines 20-67, Col 6 lines 66-Col 7 lines 1-10 Col 8 lines 24-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, SML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust for transactions with market participants; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-Col 18 lines 1-13 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23, Col 22 lines 14-23, Col 29 lines 55-Col 33 lines 13-25)
generate via SQL command a third number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which the third number of the investment share data structure records are structured as facilitating redemption [purchases] transaction for the market participant, in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is structured for continuous purchase and redemption of any number of investment shares data records ((Bendel) in at least abstract; Col 3 lines 39-67, Col 4 lines 1-8, Col 5 lines 20-67, Col 6 lines 66-Col 7 lines 1-10, lines 55-60, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, SML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust for transactions with market participants; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 35-38, lines 60-Col 18 lines 1-13 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23, Col 33 lines 5-12, Col 35 lines 4-6 wherein the prior art teaches investors can buy/sell shares)
With respect to the limitations “generate, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records via SQL command” and “generate via SQL command a third number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure,” according to MPEP 2144.04 section VI; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.), the claimed second and third generate limitations are mere duplication of parts.
With respect to the limitation “data structure ...generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure. Although the prior art does not limit the data structure created, the prior art does teach single orders generated (see Col 13 lines 58-61 “the customer selecting the class of shares and inputting the quantity to be traded, the customer selecting the order type and adding any special instructions. The customer then submits the order to the central controller”). Therefore, since a single order can be created and submitted the prior art provides teaches, suggest and makes obvious that a command to create a single order/record is known and would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
The prior art Bendel teaches applying the modules and programming for stock issuance (create investment vehicles) . The teaching of Bendel Col 9-10 teaches applying modules and program code where the operational data may be embodied in any “suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure” as those skilled in the art will appreciate the use of “conventional support software typically associated with computers…where such functional blocks realized by software components to perform specified functions …software elements may be implemented with any programming/scripting language such as SQL stored procedures…employing any number of conventional techniques. The prior art Bendel provides explicit evidence that the use of SQL language for storing procedures is known to one of ordinary skill in the art and conventional as well that operational data may be a single data set the data may be any suitable type of data structure. The prior art explicitly teaches that such programming elements are applied to employ functions and routines to perform the operations discussed in the reference. These operations include the issuance of financial instructions.
The prior art Bendel teaches that SQL command language can be implemented with any combination of data structures and teaches in Col 8 that purpose of the publication is “the generation and transfer of paper stock certificates as part of the computer based method of the present disclosure.” And teaches by incorporation of reference paper stock certificates can include as recited in col 14 “The exchange-traded shares may be issued by an open-end mutual fund, a closed-end mutual fund, or a unit investment trust” Both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach creating and redeeming trading investment vehicles.
Bendel teaches the motivation of applying modules and program code where the operational data may be embodied in any “suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure” as those skilled in the art will appreciate the use of “conventional support software typically associated with computers…where such functional blocks realized by software components to perform specified functions …software elements may be implemented with any programming/scripting language such as SQL stored procedures…employing any number of conventional techniques and teaches that it is known for investment companies to issue closed-end and other forms of investment vehicles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify Gastineau682 to include conventional coding and data structures for the issuance of closed end investment vehicles as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation of Bendel teaches the motivation of applying modules and program code where the operational data may be embodied in any “suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure” as those skilled in the art will appreciate the use of “conventional support software typically associated with computers…where such functional blocks realized by software components to perform specified functions …software elements may be implemented with any programming/scripting language such as SQL stored procedures…employing any number of conventional techniques and teaches that it is known for investment companies to issue closed-end and other forms of investment vehicles.
With respect to the SQL command data structure record limitation, both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach data formatted for processing data in a market exchange. Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify Gastineau682 data formatting and storage algorithms to include SQL storage procedures and algorithms as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures.
Claim 2-5 and Claim 6-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,452,682 B1 by Gastineau et al. (Gastineau 682), and further in view of US Patent No. 8,589,29 B1 by A1 by Bendel (Bendel)
In reference to Claim 2:
Gastineau 682 teaches:
(Previously Presented) A non-transparent investment vehicle management apparatus ((Gastineau 682) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 17; Col 51 lines 63-Col 52 lines 1-25, Col 53 lines 1-32), comprising:
at least one memory ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 52 lines 7-25, Col 52 lines 62-67)
a component collection stored in the at least one memory ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 18 lines 1-23, Col 22 lines 1-19, col 26 lines 15-26, Col 52 lines 7-25, Col 52 lines 62-67) to:
at least one processor disposed in communication with the at least one processor executing processor executable instructions from the component collection, the component collection storage structured with processor executable instructions ((Gastineau 682) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 17; Col 51 lines 63-Col 52 lines 1-25) comprising
instantiate a closed-end investment vehicle configuration structure [formatted order] ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 39-64, Col 7 lines 13-44, lines 47-67, Col 9 lines 45-49 (“wherein the order entry format is modified to minimize systems changes needed to accommodate price-contingent or volume contingent trades.”); Col 17 lines 64-Col 18, Col 19 lines 10-21, Col 22 lines 1-28, Col 26 lines 15-26, Col 26 lines 27-34 (“wide range of financial instruments, trading techniques, and trading processes may be accommodated with changes in exchange order formats, structures, and processes with the common element being a settlement price, a trade volume, or any combination of a settlement price and a trade volume to be determined in the future.), Col 26 lines 42-63 (“execution formats and processes may be characterized by settlement terms that are determined by future trading prices, future trading volumes, future NAY calculations, or some other variable or combination of variables that sets the trade's specifications and settlement provisions once the determining variables have been calculated. … Also, other execution formats and processes applicable to the present invention will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts based on the teachings contained herein”; Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 37 lines 55-Col 38 lines 1-7 (“the parties use standard order formats and procedures characteristic of exchange trading,”);
create a closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 3. Col 6 lines 61-Col 7, Col 19 lines 10-27, Col 22 lines 3-28, Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29) in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated ... to creating a singular data structure record ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 13 lines 20-42 wherein the prior art teaches creating orders, Col 14 lines 35-45 wherein the prior art teaches generation of orders and generation of instructions for custodian and transfer functions, Col 19 lines 22-27, Col 26 lines 27-35 wherein the prior art teaches order formats, structures and processes, Col 37 lines 60-67, Col 30 lines 25-38)
determine a plurality of investment shares for the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 1, FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-19, Col 10 lines 62-Col 11 lines 1-35);
determine a share price for the plurality of the investment shares ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 8; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-20, Col 14 lines 63-67, Col 15 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 48-67, Col 24 lines 19-28, Col 28 lines 61-Col 29 lines 1-52);
generate, through an initial public offering, the plurality of investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which the plurality investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 11 lines 22-64, Col 14 lines 45-55, lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-13, lines 58-col 16 lines 1-38, Col 19 lines 22-27)
obtain a first purchase request for the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure from a market participant ((Gastineau682) in at FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 15-58, Col 27 lines 48-67)
provide a first number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which first number of the investment shares data structure records are configured for delivery to the market participant ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 23 lines 65-Col 24 lines 1-17);
obtain a second purchase request for the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure subsequent to the first purchase request ((Gastineau682) in at FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 15-58, Col 27 lines 48-67);
generate, through continuous public offerings, a second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which the second number of investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; Col 1 lines 40-52 wherein the prior art teaches “The continuous auction market is the standard for most global securities and futures markets.”; Col 11 lines 22-64, Col 14 lines 45-55, lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-13, lines 58-col 16 lines 1-38, Col 19 lines 10-20, Closed lines 22 lines 3-28, Col 28 lines 14-23 “The computerized trading system stores not only the order for the financial instrument, but also any contingency upon which the order is stated. In additional embodiments, steps 1102, 1104, and 1106 may be repeated for additional parties that enter orders for the financial instrument stated in terms of price-based, volume-based, and/or NAV-based contingencies”; Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 36 lines 28-38 “ The interaction between traditional markets--e.g., the continuous auction market--and NAV-based secondary market trading can directly reduce some of the market maker's risks and enrich their opportunities for risk management. If a traditional continuous auction market is the only organized market for an exchange-traded fund, the market maker focuses on the contemporary bids and offers in that market throughout the trading session and manages its inventory primarily by hedging price risk”; Col 36 lines 58-Col 37 lines 1-33);
determine share price of the second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on market price ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 8; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-20, Col 14 lines 63-67, Col 15 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 48-67, Col 24 lines 19-28, Col 28 lines 61-Col 29 lines 1-52); and
generate a transaction of the second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on the determined share price, in which the second number of the investment share data structure records are structured as facilitating a transaction. ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 10; Col 26 lines 15-67, Col 27 lines 1-47)
With respect to the term “data structure”, the prior art Gastineau 682 teaches in at least Col 11 lines 65-Col 12, Col 18, Col 22 lines 28-Col 23 lines 1-30, Col 25, Col 30, Col 38-41, Col 44-45, Col 47-48).
Gastineau 682 teaches structuring data in order organize data for a plurality of purposes with respect analyzing data for trading transaction (for example to related share classes; structuring data in order to compare estimates; to outline types of transactions; to correlate investment securities to specific symbols of the security; …see in at least Col 11 lines 65-Col 12, Col 18, Col 22 lines 28-Col 23 lines 1-30, Col 25, Col 30, Col 38-41, Col 44-45, Col 47-48).
Gastineau682 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure record
Bendel teaches:
create a closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure record ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 15-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, XML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-20, lines 28-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23)
generate, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which the plurality investment shares data structure records are structure for issuance ((Bendel) in at least abstract; Col 3 lines 39-67, Col 4 lines 1-8, Col 5 lines 20-67, Col 6 lines 66-Col 7 lines 1-10, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, XML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-20, lines 28-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23)
With respect to the limitation “data structure ...generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure. Although the prior art does not limit the data structure created, the prior art does teach single orders generated (see Col 13 lines 58-61 “the customer selecting the class of shares and inputting the quantity to be traded, the customer selecting the order type and adding any special instructions. The customer then submits the order to the central controller”). Therefore, since a single order can be created and submitted the prior art provides teaches, suggest and makes obvious that a command to create a single order is known and would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the limitations “generate, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records via SQL command” and “generate via SQL command a third number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure,” according to MPEP 2144.04 section VI; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.), the claimed second and third generate limitations are mere duplication of parts.
With respect to the limitation “data structure ...generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure. Although the prior art does not limit the data structure created, the prior art does teach single orders generated (see Col 13 lines 58-61 “the customer selecting the class of shares and inputting the quantity to be traded, the customer selecting the order type and adding any special instructions. The customer then submits the order to the central controller”). Therefore, since a single order can be created and submitted the prior art provides teaches, suggest and makes obvious that a command to create a single order/record is known and would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
The prior art Bendel teaches applying the modules and programming for stock issuance (create investment vehicles) . The teaching of Bendel Col 9-10 teaches applying modules and program code where the operational data may be embodied in any “suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure” as those skilled in the art will appreciate the use of “conventional support software typically associated with computers…where such functional blocks realized by software components to perform specified functions …software elements may be implemented with any programming/scripting language such as SQL stored procedures…employing any number of conventional techniques. The prior art Bendel provides explicit evidence that the use of SQL language for storing procedures is known to one of ordinary skill in the art and conventional as well that operational data may be a single data set the data may be any suitable type of data structure. The prior art explicitly teaches that such programming elements are applied to employ functions and routines to perform the operations discussed in the reference. These operations include the issuance of financial instructions.
The prior art Bendel teaches that SQL command language can be implemented with any combination of data structures and teaches in Col 8 that purpose of the publication is “the generation and transfer of paper stock certificates as part of the computer based method of the present disclosure.” And teaches by incorporation of reference paper stock certificates can include as recited in col 14 “The exchange-traded shares may be issued by an open-end mutual fund, a closed-end mutual fund, or a unit investment trust” Both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach creating and redeeming trading investment vehicles.
Bendel teaches the motivation of applying modules and program code where the operational data may be embodied in any “suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure” as those skilled in the art will appreciate the use of “conventional support software typically associated with computers…where such functional blocks realized by software components to perform specified functions …software elements may be implemented with any programming/scripting language such as SQL stored procedures…employing any number of conventional techniques and teaches that it is known for investment companies to issue closed-end and other forms of investment vehicles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify Gastineau682 to include conventional coding and data structures for the issuance of closed end investment vehicles as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation of Bendel teaches the motivation of applying modules and program code where the operational data may be embodied in any “suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure” as those skilled in the art will appreciate the use of “conventional support software typically associated with computers…where such functional blocks realized by software components to perform specified functions …software elements may be implemented with any programming/scripting language such as SQL stored procedures…employing any number of conventional techniques and teaches that it is known for investment companies to issue closed-end and other forms of investment vehicles.
With respect to the SQL command data structure record limitation, both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach data formatted for processing data in a market exchange. Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing the invention was made to modify Gastineau682 data formatting and storage algorithms to include SQL storage procedures and algorithms as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures.
In reference to Claim 3:
Gastineau 682 teaches:
(Previously Presented) A non-transparent investment vehicle management processor-readable tangible medium non-transient medium, the medium storing a component collection, ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 52 lines 7-67) comprising:
instantiate a closed-end investment vehicle configuration structure [format] ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 39-64, Col 7 lines 13-44, lines 47-67, Col 9 lines 45-49 (“wherein the order entry format is modified to minimize systems changes needed to accommodate price-contingent or volume contingent trades.”); Col 17 lines 64-Col 18, Col 19 lines 10-21, Col 22 lines 1-28, Col 26 lines 15-26, Col 26 lines 27-34 (“wide range of financial instruments, trading techniques, and trading processes may be accommodated with changes in exchange order formats, structures, and processes with the common element being a settlement price, a trade volume, or any combination of a settlement price and a trade volume to be determined in the future.), Col 26 lines 42-63 (“execution formats and processes may be characterized by settlement terms that are determined by future trading prices, future trading volumes, future NAY calculations, or some other variable or combination of variables that sets the trade's specifications and settlement provisions once the determining variables have been calculated. … Also, other execution formats and processes applicable to the present invention will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts based on the teachings contained herein”; Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 37 lines 55-Col 38 lines 1-7 (“the parties use standard order formats and procedures characteristic of exchange trading,”);
create a closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 3. Col 6 lines 61-Col 7, Col 19 lines 10-27, Col 22 lines 3-28, Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29) in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated ... creating a singular data structure record ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 13 lines 20-42 wherein the prior art teaches creating orders, Col 14 lines 35-45 wherein the prior art teaches generation of orders and generation of instructions for custodian and transfer functions, Col 19 lines 10-27, Col 26 lines 27-35 wherein the prior art teaches order formats, structures and processes, Col 37 lines 60-67, Col 30 lines 25-38);
determine a plurality of investment shares for the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 1, FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-19, Col 10 lines 62-Col 11 lines 1-35);
determine a share price for the plurality of the investment shares ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 8; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-20, Col 14 lines 63-67, Col 15 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 48-67, Col 24 lines 19-28, Col 28 lines 61-Col 29 lines 1-52);
generate, through an initial public offering, the plurality of investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which the plurality investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 11 lines 22-64, Col 14 lines 45-55, lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-13, lines 58-col 16 lines 1-38, Col 19 lines 22-27);
obtain a first purchase request for the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure from a market participant ((Gastineau682) in at FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 15-58, Col 27 lines 48-67);
provide a first number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which first number of the investment shares data structure records are structured for delivery to the market participant ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 23 lines 65-Col 24 lines 1-17);
obtain a second purchase request for the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure subsequent to the first purchase request ((Gastineau682) in at FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 15-58, Col 27 lines 48-67);
generate, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure wherein the second number of the investment shares data structure records are configured for issuance ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; Col 1 lines 40-52 wherein the prior art teaches “The continuous auction market is the standard for most global securities and futures markets.”; Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 11 lines 22-64, Col 14 lines 45-55, lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-13, lines 58-col 16 lines 1-38, Col 19 lines 10-27, Closed lines 22 lines 3-28, Col 28 lines 14-23 “The computerized trading system stores not only the order for the financial instrument, but also any contingency upon which the order is stated. In additional embodiments, steps 1102, 1104, and 1106 may be repeated for additional parties that enter orders for the financial instrument stated in terms of price-based, volume-based, and/or NAV-based contingencies”; Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 36 lines 28-38 “ The interaction between traditional markets--e.g., the continuous auction market--and NAV-based secondary market trading can directly reduce some of the market maker's risks and enrich their opportunities for risk management. If a traditional continuous auction market is the only organized market for an exchange-traded fund, the market maker focuses on the contemporary bids and offers in that market throughout the trading session and manages its inventory primarily by hedging price risk”; Col 36 lines 58-Col 37 lines 1-33)
determine share price of the second number of the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on market price ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 8; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-20, Col 14 lines 63-67, Col 15 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 48-67, Col 24 lines 19-28, Col 28 lines 61-Col 29 lines 1-52); and
generate a transaction of the second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on the determined share price in which the second number of the investment share data structure records are structured as facilitating a transaction. ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 10; Col 19 lines 22-27, Col 26 lines 15-67, Col 27 lines 1-47)
Gastineau 682 teaches structuring data in order organize data for a plurality of purposes with respect analyzing data for trading transaction (for example to related share classes; structuring data in order to compare estimates; to outline types of transactions; to correlate investment securities to specific symbols of the security; …see in at least Col 11 lines 65-Col 12, Col 17 lines 22-27, Col 18, Col 22 lines 28-Col 23 lines 1-30, Col 25, Col 30, Col 38-41, Col 44-45, Col 47-48).
Gastineau682 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure record
Bendel teaches:
create a closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command creating a singular data structure record ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 15-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 wherein the prior art teaches data may be identified and organized within any suitable type of data structure, Col10 lines 20-46, (“may be implemented with any programming or scripting language…SQL stored procedures … with various algorithms being implemented with any combination of data structures, objects, processes, routines or other programming elements”; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23),
generate, through an initial public offering, the plurality of investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which the plurality investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 24-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, SML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust for transactions with market participants; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 19 lines 22-27, Col 22 lines 14-23)
generate, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 24-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, SML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust for transactions with market participants; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23)
generate a transaction of the second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed- end investment vehicle data structure …, in which the second number of the investment share data structure records are structured as facilitating a transaction. ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 24-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, SML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust for transactions with market participants; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23)
With respect to the limitation “data structure ...generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure. Although the prior art does not limit the data structure created, the prior art does teach single orders generated (see Col 13 lines 58-61 “the customer selecting the class of shares and inputting the quantity to be traded, the customer selecting the order type and adding any special instructions. The customer then submits the \order to the central controller”). Therefore, since a single order can be created and submitted the prior art provides teaches, suggest and makes obvious that a command to create a single order is known and would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
The prior art teaches that SQL command language can be implemented with any combination of data structures and teaches in Col 8 that purpose of the publication is “the generation and transfer of paper stock certificates as part of the computer based method of the present disclosure.” And teaches paper stock certificates can include as recited in col 14 “An investor may also purchase or sell exchange-traded shares on the secondary market through a broker. The exchange-traded shares may be issued by an open-end mutual fund, a closed-end mutual fund, or a unit investment trust” Both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach creating and redeeming closed-end trading investment vehicles. Bendel teaches the motivation of a continuous public offering of shares in order to provide additional capital funding by issuing stock in the holding company in order to provide periodic or repeated additional funding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify Gastineau to include continuous public offerings as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation of a continuous public offering of shares in order to provide additional capital funding by issuing stock in the holding company in order to provide periodic or repeated additional funding.
With respect to the SQL command data structure record limitation, both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach data formatted for processing data in a market exchange. Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify Gastineau682 data formatting and storage algorithms to include SQL storage procedures and algorithms as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures.
In reference to Claim 5:
Gastineau 682 teaches:
(Previously Presented) A non-transparent investment vehicle management method including processing processor executable instructions via at least one processor from a component collection stored at least one memory, the component collection storage structured with processor executable instructions ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 2B ref # 60; FIG. 3 ref # 100; FIG. 4; Fig. 9, FIG, 14; wherein the prior art illustrates Share calculation; FIG. 6-7; Col 2, Col 13 lines 20-60, Col 14 lines 14-55, Col 15 lines 1-28, Col 16 lines 23-65, Col 18 lines 1-65, Col 21 lines 52-58, Col 22 lines 1-18, Col 26 lines 15-26, Col 37 lines 20-43), comprising:
instantiating a closed-end investment vehicle configuration structure [format] ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 39-64, Col 7 lines 13-44, lines 47-67, Col 9 lines 45-49 (“wherein the order entry format is modified to minimize systems changes needed to accommodate price-contingent or volume contingent trades.”); Col 17 lines 64-Col 18, Col 19 lines 10-21, Col 22 lines 1-28, Col 26 lines 15-26, Col 26 lines 27-34 (“wide range of financial instruments, trading techniques, and trading processes may be accommodated with changes in exchange order formats, structures, and processes with the common element being a settlement price, a trade volume, or any combination of a settlement price and a trade volume to be determined in the future.), Col 26 lines 42-63 (“execution formats and processes may be characterized by settlement terms that are determined by future trading prices, future trading volumes, future NAY calculations, or some other variable or combination of variables that sets the trade's specifications and settlement provisions once the determining variables have been calculated. … Also, other execution formats and processes applicable to the present invention will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts based on the teachings contained herein”; Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 37 lines 55-Col 38 lines 1-7 (“the parties use standard order formats and procedures characteristic of exchange trading,”);
creating a closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 3. Col 6 lines 61-Col 7, Col 19 lines 10-27, Col 22 lines 3-28, Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29) in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command creating a data structure record ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 13 lines 20-42 wherein the prior art teaches creating orders, Col 14 lines 35-45 wherein the prior art teaches generation of orders and generation of instructions for custodian and transfer functions, Col 26 lines 27-35 wherein the prior art teaches order formats, structures and processes, Col 37 lines 60-67, Col 30 lines 25-38)
determining a plurality of investment shares and a net asset value for the closed end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 1, FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-19, Col 10 lines 62-Col 11 lines 1-35);
determining a share price for the plurality of the investment shares based on the net asset value of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 8; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-20, Col 14 lines 63-67, Col 15 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 48-67, Col 24 lines 19-28, Col 28 lines 61-Col 29 lines 1-52);
generating, via an initial public offering, the plurality of investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in-which the plurality investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 11 lines 22-64, Col 14 lines 45-55, lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-13, lines 58-col 16 lines 1-38, Col 19 lines 22-27);
obtaining a first purchase request for the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure from a market participant ((Gastineau682) in at FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 15-58, Col 27 lines 48-67);
providing a first transaction of a first number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure to the market participant in which the first number of the investment shares data structure records are structured for delivery ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 23 lines 65-Col 24 lines 1-17);
obtaining a second purchase request for the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure subsequent to the first purchase request ((Gastineau682) in at FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 15-58, Col 27 lines 48-67);
generating, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which first number of the investment shares data structure records are structured for delivery ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; Col 1 lines 40-52 wherein the prior art teaches “The continuous auction market is the standard for most global securities and futures markets.”; Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 11 lines 22-64, Col 14 lines 45-55, lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-13, lines 58-col 16 lines 1-38, Col 19 lines 10-27, Closed lines 22 lines 3-28, Col 28 lines 14-23 “The computerized trading system stores not only the order for the financial instrument, but also any contingency upon which the order is stated. In additional embodiments, steps 1102, 1104, and 1106 may be repeated for additional parties that enter orders for the financial instrument stated in terms of price-based, volume-based, and/or NAV-based contingencies”; Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 36 lines 28-38 “ The interaction between traditional markets--e.g., the continuous auction market--and NAV-based secondary market trading can directly reduce some of the market maker's risks and enrich their opportunities for risk management. If a traditional continuous auction market is the only organized market for an exchange-traded fund, the market maker focuses on the contemporary bids and offers in that market throughout the trading session and manages its inventory primarily by hedging price risk”; Col 36 lines 58-Col 37 lines 1-33);
determining share price of the second number of the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on market price ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 8; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-20, Col 14 lines 63-67, Col 15 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 48-67, Col 24 lines 19-28, Col 28 lines 61-Col 29 lines 1-52);
generating a transaction of the second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on the determined share price in which the second number of the investment share data structure records are structured as facilitating a transaction ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 19 lines 22-27, Col 23 lines 65-Col 24 lines 1-17);
obtaining a redemption request from the market participant redeeming a third number of the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 2B; FIG. 3; FIG. 5; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-44, lines 60-col 8 lines 1-18, Col 9 lines 16-col 10 lines 1-22, Col 10 lines 63-Col 11 lines 1-20); and
generating, a redemption transaction for the market participant redeeming the third number of the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which the third number of the investment share data structure records are structured as facilitating a transaction((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 2B; FIG. 3; FIG. 5; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-44, lines 60-col 8 lines 1-18, Col 9 lines 16-col 10 lines 1-22, Col 10 lines 63-Col 11 lines 1-20 Col 12 lines 15-40, Col 16 lines 58-Col 16 lines 1-35, Col 17 lines 1-41, Col 33 lines 16-43, col 34 lines 29-Col 35 lines 1-15).
Gastineau 682 teaches structuring data in order organize data for a plurality of purposes with respect analyzing data for trading transaction (for example to related share classes; structuring data in order to compare estimates; to outline types of transactions; to correlate investment securities to specific symbols of the security; …see in at least Col 11 lines 65-Col 12, Col 18, Col 22 lines 28-Col 23 lines 1-30, Col 25, Col 30, Col 38-41, Col 44-45, Col 47-48)
Gastineau682 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a data structure record
Bendel teaches:
creating a closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which the closed-end vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure record ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 15-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, XML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-20, lines 28-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23),
generate, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure… ((Bendel) in at least abstract; Col 3 lines 39-67, Col 4 lines 1-8, Col 5 lines 20-67, Col 6 lines 66-Col 7 lines 1-10, Col 9 lines 54-64 wherein the prior art teaches data may be identified and organized within any suitable type of data structure, Col 15 lines 2-36, Col 17 lines 60-Col 18 lines 1-13)
With respect to the limitation “data structure ...generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure. Although the prior art does not limit the data structure created, the prior art does teach single orders generated (see Col 13 lines 58-61 “the customer selecting the class of shares and inputting the quantity to be traded, the customer selecting the order type and adding any special instructions. The customer then submits the \order to the central controller”). Therefore, since a single order can be created and submitted the prior art provides teaches, suggest and makes obvious that a command to create a single order is known and would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
The prior art teaches that SQL command language can be implemented with any combination of data structures and teaches in Col 8 that purpose of the publication is “the generation and transfer of paper stock certificates as part of the computer based method of the present disclosure.” And teaches paper stock certificates can include as recited in col 14 “An investor may also purchase or sell exchange-traded shares on the secondary market through a broker. The exchange-traded shares may be issued by an open-end mutual fund, a closed-end mutual fund, or a unit investment trust” Both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach creating and redeeming closed-end trading investment vehicles. Bendel teaches the motivation of a continuous public offering of shares in order to provide additional capital funding by issuing stock in the holding company in order to provide periodic or repeated additional funding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify Gastineau682 to include continuous public offerings as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation of a continuous public offering of shares in order to provide additional capital funding by issuing stock in the holding company in order to provide periodic or repeated additional funding.
With respect to the SQL command data structure record limitation, both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach data formatted for processing data in a market exchange. Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify Gastineau682 data formatting and storage algorithms to include SQL storage procedures and algorithms as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures.
In reference to Claim 6:
Gastineau 682 teaches:
(Previously Presented) A processor-implemented non-transparent investment vehicle management method ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 2 lines 38-41), comprising:
instantiating a closed-end investment vehicle configuration structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 39-64, Col 7 lines 13-44, lines 47-67, Col 9 lines 45-49 (“wherein the order entry format is modified to minimize systems changes needed to accommodate price-contingent or volume contingent trades.”); Col 17 lines 64-Col 18, Col 19 lines 10-27, Col 22 lines 1-28, Col 26 lines 15-26, Col 26 lines 27-34 (“wide range of financial instruments, trading techniques, and trading processes may be accommodated with changes in exchange order formats, structures, and processes with the common element being a settlement price, a trade volume, or any combination of a settlement price and a trade volume to be determined in the future.), Col 26 lines 42-63 (“execution formats and processes may be characterized by settlement terms that are determined by future trading prices, future trading volumes, future NAY calculations, or some other variable or combination of variables that sets the trade's specifications and settlement provisions once the determining variables have been calculated. … Also, other execution formats and processes applicable to the present invention will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts based on the teachings contained herein”; Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 37 lines 55-Col 38 lines 1-7 (“the parties use standard order formats and procedures characteristic of exchange trading,”);
creating a closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 3. Col 6 lines 61-Col 7, Col 19 lines 10-27, Col 22 lines 3-28, Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29) in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated ... to creating a singular data structure record ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 13 lines 20-42 wherein the prior art teaches creating orders, Col 14 lines 35-45 wherein the prior art teaches generation of orders and generation of instructions for custodian and transfer functions, Col 19 lines 22-27, Col 26 lines 27-35 wherein the prior art teaches order formats, structures and processes, Col 37 lines 60-67, Col 30 lines 25-38);
determining a plurality of investment shares for the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 1, FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-19, Col 10 lines 62-Col 11 lines 1-35);
determining a share price for the plurality of the investment shares ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 8; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-20, Col 14 lines 63-67, Col 15 lines 1-13, Col 15 lines 48-67, Col 24 lines 19-28, Col 28 lines 61-Col 29 lines 1-52);
generate the plurality of investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; Col 7 lines 1-27, Col 11 lines 22-64, Col 14 lines 45-55, lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-13, lines 58-col 16 lines 1-38, Col 19 lines 22-27);
obtaining a first purchase request for the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure from a market participant ((Gastineau682) in at FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 15-58, Col 27 lines 48-67);
providing a first transaction of a first number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which first number of the investment shares data structure records are structured for delivery to the market participant ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 1-58, Col 27-Col 28);
obtaining a second purchase request for the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure subsequent to the first purchase request ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 10-11; Col 26 lines 1-58, Col 27 lines 48-Col 28 lines 1-23;
generating, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure in which the second number of the investment shares data structure records are structured for issuance ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; Col 1 lines 40-52 wherein the prior art teaches “The continuous auction market is the standard for most global securities and futures markets.”; Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 11 lines 22-64, Col 14 lines 45-55, lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-13, lines 58-col 16 lines 1-38, Col 19 lines 10-27, Closed lines 22 lines 3-28, Col 28 lines 14-23 “The computerized trading system stores not only the order for the financial instrument, but also any contingency upon which the order is stated. In additional embodiments, steps 1102, 1104, and 1106 may be repeated for additional parties that enter orders for the financial instrument stated in terms of price-based, volume-based, and/or NAV-based contingencies”; Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 36 lines 28-38 “ The interaction between traditional markets--e.g., the continuous auction market--and NAV-based secondary market trading can directly reduce some of the market maker's risks and enrich their opportunities for risk management. If a traditional continuous auction market is the only organized market for an exchange-traded fund, the market maker focuses on the contemporary bids and offers in that market throughout the trading session and manages its inventory primarily by hedging price risk”; Col 36 lines 58-Col 37 lines 1-33);
determining share price of the second number of the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on market price ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 4; wherein the prior art illustrates Share calculation; FIG. 6-7; Col 18 lines 25-65); and
generating a transaction of the second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on the determined share price in which the second number of the investment share data structure records are structured as facilitating a transaction ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 10-11; Col 7 lines 1-25, Col 19 lines 22-27, Col 26 lines 1-58, Col 27-Col 28).
Gastineau 682 teaches structuring data in order organize data for a plurality of purposes with respect analyzing data for trading transaction (for example to related share classes; structuring data in order to compare estimates; to outline types of transactions; to correlate investment securities to specific symbols of the security; …see ((Gastineau 682) in at least Col 11 lines 65-Col 12, Col 18, Col 22 lines 28-Col 23 lines 1-30, Col 25, Col 30, Col 38-41, Col 44-45, Col 47-48).
Gastineau682 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a data structure record
Bendel teaches:
creating a closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure record ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 15-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, XML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-20, lines 28-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23),
generate the plurality of investment shares data structures of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 15-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, XML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-20, lines 28-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23);
generating, through a continuous public offering, a second number of the investment shares data structure records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure …((Bendel) in at least abstract; Col 3 lines 39-67, Col 4 lines 1-8, Col 5 lines 20-67, Col 6 lines 66-Col 7 lines 1-10, Col 15 lines 2-36, Col 17 lines 60-Col 18 lines 1-13)
With respect to the limitation “data structure ...generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure. Although the prior art does not limit the data structure created, the prior art does teach single orders generated (see Col 13 lines 58-61 “the customer selecting the class of shares and inputting the quantity to be traded, the customer selecting the order type and adding any special instructions. The customer then submits the \order to the central controller”). Therefore, since a single order can be created and submitted the prior art provides teaches suggest and makes obvious that a command to create a single order is known and would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
The prior art teaches that SQL command language can be implemented with any combination of data structures and teaches in Col 8 that purpose of the publication is “the generation and transfer of paper stock certificates as part of the computer based method of the present disclosure.” And teaches paper stock certificates can include as recited in col 14 “An investor may also purchase or sell exchange-traded shares on the secondary market through a broker. The exchange-traded shares may be issued by an open-end mutual fund, a closed-end mutual fund, or a unit investment trust” Both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach creating and redeeming closed-end trading investment vehicles. Bendel teaches the motivation of a continuous public offering of shares in order to provide additional capital funding by issuing stock in the holding company in order to provide periodic or repeated additional funding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify Gastineau682 to include continuous public offerings as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation of a continuous public offering of shares in order to provide additional capital funding by issuing stock in the holding company in order to provide periodic or repeated additional funding.
With respect to the SQL command data structure record limitation, both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach data formatted for processing data in a market exchange. Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify Gastineau682 data formatting and storage algorithms to include SQL storage procedures and algorithms as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures.
In reference to claim 7:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the creating a closed-end investment vehicle data structure is
in compliance with regulatory requirement ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 2A; Col 5 lines 5-32, Col 6 lines 20-41, Col 8 lines 60-Col 9 lines 1-16, Col 12 lines 27-62, Col 13 lines 43-67)
In reference to claim 8:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the closed-end investment vehicle data structure comprises
an exchange-traded fund (ETF).((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 4; Table 2; Col 14 lines 63-Col 15 lines 1-27, Col 19 lines 10-20)
In reference to claim 9:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9.
(Original) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above),
wherein the determining a share price for the plurality of the investment shares comprises calculating net asset value (NAV) of the nontransparent investment vehicle structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 2B, FIG. 4, FIG. 8; Col 9 lines 17-52, Col 11 lines 22-Col 12).
In reference to claim 10:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above),
wherein the share price is different from the NAV of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure. ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 2B, FIG. 4, FIG. 8; Col 9 lines 17-52, Col 11 lines 22-Col 12, Col 22 lines 1-28, Col 31 lines 30-60).
In reference to claim 11:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6), further comprising:
permitting the market participant to redeem the first number of the investment shares of the non-transparent investment vehicle data structure for a plurality of securities on the secondary market. ((Gastineau682) in at least Abstract; Col 2 lines 45-67, Col 5 lines 1-10, Col 10 lines 63-Col 14 lines 1-20, Col 32 lines 65-Col 33, Col 35 lines 16-49, Col 37 lines 35-49; Claim 27)
In reference to claim 12:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12.
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), further comprising:
permitting the market participant to purchase a second number of the investment shares of the nontransparent investment vehicle data structure on the secondary market with a plurality of securities on the secondary market. ((Gastineau682) in at least Abstract; Col 32 lines 65-Col 33, Col 35 lines 16-49, Col 37 lines 35-49)
In reference to claim 13:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13.
(Original) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above),
wherein the secondary market comprises a public stock exchange ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 16 lines 60-67)
In reference to claim 14:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14.
(Original) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above),
wherein the first number of the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure are configured to subsequently trade on a secondary market. ((Gastineau682) in at least Abstract; FIG. 2B; FIG. 10-11; Col 2 lines 45-67, Col 5 lines 1-10, Col 10 lines 63-Col 14 lines 1-20, Col 26 lines 15-Col 27, Col 32 lines 65-Col 33, Col 35 lines 16-49, Col 37 lines 35-49; Claim 27)
In reference to claim 18:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18
(Previously Presented) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above)
wherein the share price of the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is different from a price determined upon the net asset value of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure. ((Gastineau682) in at FIG. 4; Col 11 lines 35-64, Col 23 lines 10-30; wherein the prior art teaches trading dependent upon types of price and volume contingency; Col 24 lines 1-58 )
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,452,682 B1 by Gastineau et al. (Gastineau 682), in view of US Patent No. 8,589,269 B1 by Bendel (Bendel) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2012/0173453 A1 by Sfakianos et al. (Sfakianos)
In reference to claim 15:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15.
(Original) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above),
Gastineau682 or Bendel do not explicitly teach:
wherein the continuous public offering comprises a limited public offering, is permitted to take place on a periodic basis.
Sfakianos teaches:
wherein the continuous public offering comprises a limited public offering, is permitted to take place on a periodic basis ((Sfakianos) in at least para 0051)
Both Gastineau682 and Sfakianos are directed toward trading closed end investments. Sfakianos teaches the motivation trading techniques in order to make available products for institutional or high net worth investors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify the techniques for trading of Gastineau682 to include the trading techniques as taught by Sfakianos since Sfakianos teaches the motivation trading techniques in order to make available products for institutional or high net worth investors.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,452,682 B1 by Gastineau et al. (Gastineau 682), in view of US Patent No. 8,589,269 B1 by Bendel (Bendel) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2010/0023436 A1 by Weild, IV (Weild)
In reference to claim 16:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16
(Original) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), further comprising:
Gastineau682 or Bendel do not explicitly teach:
issuing new shares to authorized market participants on a periodic basis through a limited public offering.
Weild teaches:
issuing new shares to authorized market participants on a periodic basis through a limited public offering ((Weild) in at least para 0021, para 0023, para 0070-0087)
Both Gastineau682 and Weild teach trading ETF’s. Wield teaches the motivation of issuing shares for periods based on cash and other returns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify the techniques for trading of Gastineau682 to include the trading techniques as taught by Weild since Wield teaches the motivation of issuing shares for periods based on cash and other returns.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,452,682 B1 by Gastineau et al. (Gastineau 682), in view of US Patent No. 8,589,269 B1 by Bendel (Bendel) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2005/0119962 A1 by Bowen et al. (Bowen)
In reference to claim 17:
The combination of Gastineau682 and Bendel discloses the limitations of independent claim 6. Gastineau682 further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17
(Previously presented) The method of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), further comprising:
receiving a redemption request to redeem investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 2B; FIG. 3; FIG. 5; Col 6 lines 61-67, Col 7 lines 1-44, lines 60-col 8 lines 1-18, Col 9 lines 16-col 10 lines 1-22, Col 10 lines 63-Col 11 lines 1-20); and
Gastineau682 or Bendel do not explicitly teach:
conducting redemption the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure on a periodic basis.
Bowen teaches:
conducting redemption the investment shares of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure on a periodic basis. ((Bowen) in at least para 0020, para 0038)
Both Gastineau682 and Bowen teach trading ETF’s. Bowne teaches the motivation of redemption of shares can be limited on a periodic basis as determined by contractual agreements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify the techniques for trading of Gastineau682 to include the trading techniques as taught by Bowen since Bowne teaches the motivation of redemption of shares can be limited on a periodic basis as determined by contractual agreements.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,452,682 B1 by Gastineau et al. (Gastineau 682), in view of US Patent No. 8,589,269 B1 by Bendel (Bendel) and further in view of US Pub No. 2002/0046154 A1 by Pritchard (Pritchard)
In reference to Claim 19:
Gastineau 682 teaches:
(Previously Presented) A processor-implemented non-transparent, master-feeder investment vehicle management, multichannel data structure apparatus ((Gastineau 682) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 17; Col 51 lines 63-Col 52 lines 1-25, Col 53 lines 1-32), comprising:
a processor ((Gastineau 682) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 17; Col 51 lines 63-Col 52 lines 1-25); and
a memory disposed in communication with the processor and storing processor-issuable instructions((Gastineau682) in at least Col 52 lines 7-25, Col 52 lines 62-67) to:
instantiate a closed-end investment vehicle configuration structure [format] ((Gastineau) in at least FIG. 1; FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 39-64, Col 7 lines 1-44, lines 47-67, Col 9 lines 45-49 (“wherein the order entry format is modified to minimize systems changes needed to accommodate price-contingent or volume contingent trades.”); Col 17 lines 64-Col 18, Col 19 lines 10-27, Col 22 lines 1-28, Col 26 lines 15-26, Col 26 lines 27-34 (“wide range of financial instruments, trading techniques, and trading processes may be accommodated with changes in exchange order formats, structures, and processes with the common element being a settlement price, a trade volume, or any combination of a settlement price and a trade volume to be determined in the future.), Col 26 lines 42-63 (“execution formats and processes may be characterized by settlement terms that are determined by future trading prices, future trading volumes, future NAY calculations, or some other variable or combination of variables that sets the trade's specifications and settlement provisions once the determining variables have been calculated. … Also, other execution formats and processes applicable to the present invention will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts based on the teachings contained herein”; Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29, Col 37 lines 55-Col 38 lines 1-7 (“the parties use standard order formats and procedures characteristic of exchange trading,”);
create a closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 3. Col 6 lines 61-Col 7, Col 19 lines 10-27, Col 22 lines 3-28, Col 30 lines 30-40, Col 31 lines 15-29) in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure generated ... to creating a singular data structure record ((Gastineau682) in at least Col 13 lines 20-42 wherein the prior art teaches creating orders, Col 14 lines 35-45 wherein the prior art teaches generation of orders and generation of instructions for custodian and transfer functions, Col 26 lines 27-35 wherein the prior art teaches order formats, structures and processes, Col 37 lines 60-67, Col 30 lines 25-38);;
determine a plurality of investment share data structures for the closed-end investment vehicle data structure ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 1, FIG. 3-4; Col 5 lines 65-Col 6 lines 1-19, Col 10 lines 62-Col 11 lines 1-35);
generate a transaction of investment shares data structures records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure based on the determined share price … ((Gastineau682) in at least FIG. 10; Col 26 lines 15-67, Col 27 lines 1-47).
Gastineau682 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the closed-end investment vehicle data structure generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure record
in which a master fund establishes a data feed for tracking feeder funds
Bendel teaches:
create a closed-end investment vehicle data structure, in which the closed-end investment vehicle data structure is generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure record ((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 15-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure and may be collected as a single data set; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, XML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-20, lines 28-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23),
generate a transaction of investment shares data structures records of the closed-end investment vehicle data structure…((Bendel) in at least Col 8 lines 15-27, Col 9 lines 54-64 generation of stock certificates where the module applied for the generation process may embody and organized in any suitable type of data structure; Col 10 lines 25-46 wherein the prior art teaches employing processing elements, software elements implemented by programmed scripting language such as SQL stored procedures, XML with various algorithms implemented by any combination of data structures and other programming elements; Col 14 lines 14-20, lines 28-37 wherein the prior art teaches incorporating by reference that it is known for investment companies issuing one or more classes of shares which include open-ended mutual fund, closed-end mutual fund or unit of investment trust; Col 15 lines 7-35, Col 17 lines 60-67 wherein the prior art teaches new stock being issued; Col 22 lines 14-23),
With respect to the limitation “data structure ...generated via SQL command to create a singular data structure. Although the prior art does not limit the data structure created, the prior art does teach single orders generated (see Col 13 lines 58-61 “the customer selecting the class of shares and inputting the quantity to be traded, the customer selecting the order type and adding any special instructions. The customer then submits the \order to the central controller”). Therefore, since a single order can be created and submitted the prior art provides teaches, suggest and makes obvious that a command to create a single order is known and would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
The prior art teaches that SQL command language can be implemented with any combination of data structures and teaches in Col 8 that purpose of the publication is “the generation and transfer of paper stock certificates as part of the computer based method of the present disclosure.” And teaches paper stock certificates can include as recited in col 14 “An investor may also purchase or sell exchange-traded shares on the secondary market through a broker. The exchange-traded shares may be issued by an open-end mutual fund, a closed-end mutual fund, or a unit investment trust” Both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach creating and redeeming closed-end trading investment vehicles. Bendel teaches the motivation of a continuous public offering of shares in order to provide additional capital funding by issuing stock in the holding company in order to provide periodic or repeated additional funding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify Gastineau682 to include continuous public offerings as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation of a continuous public offering of shares in order to provide additional capital funding by issuing stock in the holding company in order to provide periodic or repeated additional funding.
With respect to the SQL command data structure record limitation, both Gastineau682 and Bendel teach data formatted for processing data in a market exchange. Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify Gastineau682 data formatting and storage algorithms to include SQL storage procedures and algorithms as taught by Bendel since Bendel teaches the motivation that there are a multiple of circuit and memory components, processing elements, logic elements in order to carry out the specified transaction functions capable of being implemented with various scripts and programming, various algorithms including SQL storage procedures.
Pritchard teaches:
In which a master fund establishes a data feed for tracking feeder funds [intended use] ((Pritchard) in at least para 0017-0019, para 0024-0025, para 0031-0032, para 0042, para 0047, para 0057, para 0061)
Both Gastineau682 and Pritchard teach trading ETF’s and records generated. Pritchard teaches the motivation of establishing records in order to develop, administer and track investment trust. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the time of effective filing the invention to modify the records process for trading of Gastineau682 to include the tracking data as taught by Pritchard since Pritchard teaches the motivation of establishing records in order to develop, administer and track investment trust.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO-0188820-A2 by Richard; WO-2012061772-A2 by Ahn et al; CA 2606652 A1 by
US Pub No. 2004/0088239 A1 by Eder; US Pub No. 2002/0035606 A1 by Kenton.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights