DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to claims filed 12/29/2025 and Applicant’s communication regarding application 16/996386 filed 12/29/2025.
Claims 1-21 have been examined with this office action.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating an objective interest rate associated with a future time period without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method, and independent claim 11 and 21 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a system. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer implemented method for reducing an amount of computational resources of a computer implemented data transaction processing system used for automatically, objectively and continuously determine determining, in a replicatable manner, an objective interest rate associated with a future time period based on subjectively generated data with reduced computational resources, the data transaction processing system being operative to transact one or more data items using a hardware matching processor that anonymously matches groups of electronic data transaction request messages comprising data indicative of subjective offers to buy or sell the data items, each of the data items specifying term and an expiration time period of a set of future expiration time periods, including an incoming electronic data transaction request message and one or more previously received but unmatched electronic data transaction request messages stored in a data structure stored in a memory coupled with the hardware matching processor, for the same one of the data items based on multiple transaction parameters of the electronic data transaction request message, received from different client computers over a data communications network, the transaction parameters of each of the subjective offers of the electronic data transaction request messages specifying the data item, order to buy or sell, and a proposed transaction price indicative of an interest rate value to be determined at the end of the specified expiration time period of the data item based on a set of daily interest rates set prior thereto over the term by a governing authority, each anonymously matched group of electronic data transaction request messages being associated with a prevailing transaction price indicative of an expected interest rate value to be determined at the end of the specified expiration time period based on the set of daily interest rates set prior thereto by the governing authority, the method comprising: providing a specifically configured sampling processor configured to interface with the hardware matching processor and a specifically configured rate generator; determining, by the specifically configured sampling processor, a set of data items to be sampled, each data item in the set having a different term and specified expiration time period consecutive with at least one other of the data items in the set;
generating, by the specifically configured sampling processor, objective input data, not subject to subjective influence of the subjective offers, for the specifically configured rate generator, for each of a set of sampling periods, by: obtaining, by the specifically configured sampling processor from the hardware matching processor, the prevailing transaction price of each of the groups of electronic data transaction request messages which are matched by the hardware matching processor during the sampling period for each of the set of data items; obtaining, automatically by the specifically configured sampling processor at a random time within a random time window of the sampling period, the random time window being a threshold time from a random period of a prior sampling period, from the hardware matching processor for each data item of the set of data items, a first best proposed transaction price of the one or more previously received but unmatched electronic data transaction request messages stored in the data structure comprising an order to buy and a second best proposed transaction price of the one or more previously received but unmatched electronic data transaction request messages represented in the data structure comprising an order to sell; upon conclusion of the sampling period, repeatedly generating, by the specifically configured sampling processor, one or more sets of values, each comprising a value for each data item of the set of data items, based on the obtained prevailing transaction prices and the first and second best proposed transaction prices, and for each generated set of values; and validating, by an optimization module of the specifically configured sampling processor as they are generated, each of the generated one or more sets of values, via conversion of the values to data objects to which pre-defined rules and relationships are iteratively and hierarchically applied to identify deviations therefrom, to determine whether each value of the set of values is consistent with the other values of the set of values as a function of expected interest rate over the consecutive specified expiration time periods as a function of a yield curve, eliminating those of the generated one or more sets of values not validated from being further processed, until a validated set of values is generated, the generating of sets of values ceasing thereupon to reduce a computational load of the specifically configured rate generator; and storing, by the specifically configured sampling processor, a minimal data set comprising only the validated set of values for the sampling period is a memory coupled with the specifically configured sampling processor; and upon conclusion of all of the sampling periods, aggregating, by the specifically configured sampling processor, each of the stored validated sets of values of each sampling period, wherein the aggregate stored validated sets of values comprises objective input data free of subjective influence; and submitting, by the specifically configured sampling processor, the objective input data to the specifically configured rate generator coupled with the specifically configured sampling processor and operative to generate the forward rate free of subjective influence”.
Claim 11 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A system for reducing an amount of computational resources of enabling a computer implemented data transaction processing system used to automatically, objectively and continuously determine, in a replicatable manner, an objective interest rate associated with a future time period based on subjectively generated data with reduced computational resources, the system being coupled with a data transaction processing system being operative to transact one or more data items using a hardware matching processor that anonymously matches groups of electronic data transaction request messages comprising data indicative of subjective offers to buy or sell the data items, each of the data items specifying term and an expiration time period of a set of future expiration time periods, including an incoming electronic data transaction request message and one or more previously received but unmatched electronic data transaction request messages represented stored in a data structure stored in a memory coupled with the hardware matching processor, for the same one of the data items based on multiple transaction parameters of the electronic data transaction request message, received from different client computers over a data communications network, the transaction parameters of each of the subjective offers of the electronic data transaction request messages specifying the data item, order to buy or sell, and a proposed transaction price indicative of an interest rate value to be determined at the end of the specified expiration time period of the data item based on a set of daily interest rates set prior thereto over the term by a governing authority, each anonymously matched group of electronic data transaction request messages being associated with a prevailing transaction price indicative of an expected interest rate value to be determined at the end of the specified expiration time period based on the set of daily interest rates set prior thereto by the governing authority, the system comprising: an instrument identifier operative to determine a set of data items to be sampled, each data item in the set having a different term and specified expiration time period consecutive with at least one other of the data items in the set; a specifically configured sampling processor configured to interface with the hardware matching processor and coupled with the instrument identifier and a specifically configured rate generator and operative to generate objective input data, not subject to subjective influence of the subjective offers, for the specifically configured rate generator, for each of a set of sampling periods, the specifically configured sampling processor being operative to: obtain, from the hardware matching processor, the prevailing transaction price of each of the groups of electronic data transaction request messages which are matched by the hardware matching processor during the sampling period for each of the set of data items;, and obtain, automatically at a random time within a random time window of the sampling period, the random time window being a threshold time from a random period of a prior sampling period from the hardware matching processor for each data item of the set of data items, a first best proposed transaction price of the one or more previously received but unmatched electronic data transaction request messages stored in the data structure comprising an order to buy and a second best proposed transaction price of the one or more previously received but unmatched electronic data transaction request messages represented in the data structure comprising an order to sell; upon conclusion of the sampling period, repeatedly generate one or more sets of values, each comprising a value for each data item of the set of data items, based on the obtained prevailing transaction prices and the first and second best proposed transaction prices, and for each generated set of values;
validate, using an optimization module of the specifically configured sampling processor as they are generated, each of the generated one or more sets of values, via conversion of the values to data objects to which pre-defined rules and relationships are iteratively and hierarchically applied to identify deviations therefrom, to determine whether each value of the set of values is consistent with the other values of the set of values as a function of expected interest rate over the consecutive specified expiration time periods as a function of a yield curve, eliminating those of the generated one or more sets of values not validated from being further processed, until a validated set of values is generated, the generation of sets of values ceasing thereupon to reduce a computational load of the specifically configured rate generator;
store a minimal data set comprising only the validated set of values for the sampling period in a memory coupled with the specifically configured sampling processor; upon conclusion of all of the sampling periods, aggregate each of the stored validated sets of values of each sampling period, wherein the aggregate stored validated sets of values comprises objective input data free of subjective influence; and submit the objective input data to the specifically configured rate generator operative to generate the forward rate free of subjective influence”.
Claim 21 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A system for reducing an amount of computational resources of a computer implemented data transaction processing system used to automatically, objectively and continuously determine, in a replicatable manner, an objective interest rate associated with a future time period based on subjectively generated data, the system being coupled with a data transaction processing system being operative to transact one or more data items using a hardware matching processor that anonymously matches groups of electronic data transaction request messages comprising data indicative of subjective offers to buy or sell the data items, each of the data items specifying term and an expiration time period of a set of future expiration time periods, including an incoming electronic data transaction request message and one or more previously received but unmatched electronic data transaction request messages stored in a data structure stored in a memory coupled with the hardware matching processor, for the same one of the data items based on multiple transaction parameters of the electronic data transaction request message, received from different client computers over a data communications network, the transaction parameters of each of the subjective offers of the electronic data transaction request messages specifying the data item, order to buy or sell, and a proposed transaction price indicative of an interest rate value to be determined at the end of the specified expiration time period of the data item based on a set of daily interest rates set prior thereto over the term by a governing authority, each anonymously matched group of electronic data transaction request messages being associated with a prevailing transaction price indicative of an expected interest rate value to be determined at the end of the specified expiration time period based on the set of daily interest rates set prior thereto by the governing authority, the system comprising: means for determining a set of data items to be sampled, each data item in the set having a different term and specified expiration time period consecutive with at least one other of the data items in the set; means specifically configured for interfacing with the hardware matching processor for generating objective input data, not subject to subjective influence of the subjective offers, for a specifically configured rate generator, for each of a set of sampling periods, the means for generating comprising: means for obtaining, from the hardware matching processor, the prevailing transaction price of each of the groups of electronic data transaction request messages which are matched by the hardware matching processor during the sampling period for each of the set of data items; means for obtaining, automatically at a random time within a random time window within the sampling period, the random time window being a threshold time from a random period of a prior sampling period, from the hardware matching processor for each data item of the set of data items, a first best proposed transaction price of the one or more previously received but unmatched electronic data transaction request messages stored in the data structure comprising an order to buy and a second best proposed transaction price of the one or more previously received but unmatched electronic data transaction request messages represented in the data structure comprising an order to sell; means for, upon conclusion of the sampling period, repeatedly generating one or more sets of values, each comprising a value for each data item of the set of data items, based on the obtained prevailing transaction prices and the first and second best proposed transaction prices, and for each generated set of values; means for validating each of the generated one or more sets of values as they are generated, via conversion of the values to data objects to which pre-defined rules and relationships are iteratively and hierarchically applied to identify deviations therefrom, to determine whether each value of the set of values is consistent with the other values of the set of values as a function of expected interest rate over the consecutive specified expiration time periods as a function of a yield curve, eliminating those of the generated one or more sets of values not validated from being further processed, until a validated set of values is generated, the generating of sets of values ceasing thereupon to reduce a computational load of the specifically configured rate generator;
and means for storing a minimal data set comprising only the validated set of values for the sampling period is a memory; and means for, upon conclusion of all of the sampling periods, aggregating each of the stored validated sets of values of each sampling period, wherein the aggregate stored validated sets of values comprises objective input data free of subjective influence; and means for submitting the objective input data to the specifically configured rate generator coupled with the sampling processor and operative to generate the forward rate free of subjective influence”.
Those claim limitations in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. An objective interest rate associated with a future time period is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: a computer; automatically/electronic; a data transaction processing system; a hardware matching processor; a data structure; a memory; a communications network; a specifically configured sampling processor; a specifically configured rate generator; data objects; to reduce a computational load of the specifically configured rate generator; with reduced computational resources. However, the specification description of the additional elements a computer ([Figures 1 and 2] [0230]); automatically/electronic (interpreted as a programmed computer [0240]); a data transaction processing system ([0295-0299]); a hardware matching processor ([Figures 4A and 4B, element 406] [0151]); a data structure ([0293]); a memory ([0253]); a communications network ([0253]); a specifically configured sampling processor ([0150] [0229-0230] [0237] [0239] [0248]); a specifically configured rate generator ([0150] [0229-0230] [0237] [0239] [0248]); data objects ([0150] “…Products, e.g., financial instruments, or order books representing the state of an electronic marketplace for a product, may be represented as data objects …” [0277] “An exchange computing system may receive conditional orders or messages for a data object, where the order may include two prices or values: a reference value and a stop value. A conditional order may be configured so that when a product represented by the data object trades at the reference price, the stop order is activated at the stop value…”); to reduce a computational load of the specifically configured rate generator ([0129] “… the disclosed embodiments optimize overall system performance by determining and selecting object values that conform to predefined rules and/or relationships between different objects, including identifying and discarding object values that deviate from or otherwise result in a violation of the pre-defined rules and relationships. Thus, the disclosed embodiments reduce the load on a computer by identifying and eliminating solutions that would result in undesirable object relationships…”); with reduced computational resources ([0129] [0274] “…an electronic trading system may function to assess and/or assign an MQI to received electronic messages to establish messages that have a higher value to the system, and thus the system may use computing resources more efficiently by expending resources to match orders of the higher value messages prior to expending resources of lower value messages…”) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward 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 the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Prior Art
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations involving deriving forward looking term interest rates from sampled prices of a regulated futures market are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regards to claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT REMARKS CONCERNING Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Applicant's arguments with regards to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments that “that while the present claims may involve a judicial exception, they do not recite a judicial exception and are therefore eligible without further analysis. But even if so, are integrated into a practical application that overcomes a technical problem and that includes non-conventional limitations” and “the claims, as amended, are not directed to a method of organizing human activity and are not similar to any of the examples provided in the above cited MPEP section”, the examiner disagrees. An objective interest rate associated with a future time period is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that “claims are directed to a technical improvement to a computer implemented data transaction processing system which enables that system to objective compute a value, i.e., free of subjective bias or influence, using subjective data, i.e., data provided by human operators”, the examiner maintains that the technical environment is merely applied to the abstract idea of the claims and that there is no improvement to the technical environment or to a technology. The objective of objective computing a value, i.e., free of subjective bias or influence, using subjective data, i.e., data provided by human operators is an abstract idea.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “the claims, as amended, provide a technical improvement which reduces an amount of computational resources of a computer implemented data transaction processing system used to automatically, objectively and continuously determine, in a replicatable manner, an objective interest rate associated with a future time period based on subjectively generated data, i.e., which reduces computational load and, inherently, reduces data storage requirements, via the claimed optimization module which, as sets of values are generated by a specifically configured sampling processor, converts each of the generated one or more sets of values to data objects to which pre-defined rules and relationships are iteratively and hierarchically applied to identify deviations therefrom, to determine whether each value of the set of values is consistent with the other values of the set of values as a function of expected interest rate over the consecutive specified expiration time periods as a function of a yield curve, eliminating those of the generated one or more sets of values not validated, until a validated set of values is generated, the generating of sets of values ceasing thereupon”, the examiner maintains that the amended claim merely recites additional limitations directed toward the abstract idea and that there is no claimed improvement to the underlying technological environment upon which the abstract idea operates. The specification describes “reduced computational resources” ([0129] [0274] “…an electronic trading system may function to assess and/or assign an MQI to received electronic messages to establish messages that have a higher value to the system, and thus the system may use computing resources more efficiently by expending resources to match orders of the higher value messages prior to expending resources of lower value messages…”) at a high level of generality and merely describes not using resources. Not using resources does not provide a technical improvement to the resources (storage, processor speed, ect …). Applicant is reminded that “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification” (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Regarding applicant’s argument that the PTAB “reasoning does not apply to the claims as presently amended herein as these claims set forth more than just a mathematical concept, or a certain method of organizing human activities and fundamental economic practice. Instead, the present claims recite a specific technical process by which sample data is obtained within a random sub-period of a random time period determined to be a threshold time from a prior sampling period and call for a validation process which eliminates unvalidated value sets so as to generate a minimal data set which reduces the computational load of the rate generator in generating the forward rate free of subjective influence”, the examiner argues that this argument does not describe a technical solution to a problem. Instead, the amended claim merely recites additional limitations directed toward the abstract idea. As stated before, there is no improvement to the underlying technological environment upon which the abstract idea operates. Therefore, unlike the cited case law (Annakov, DDR, Luminati, …) which made improvements to an underlying technology, whereas, the present application used a generic technology and computer to implement an abstract idea. Thus, the cited case law are readily distinguishable from the present claims. Further, the examiner contends that the additional elements of a specifically configured or specific technological means including a sampling processor and a specifically configured rate generator are described at a high level of generality as a programmed computer. A general purpose computer is flexible—it can do anything it is programmed to do. Therefore, the disclosure of a general purpose computer or a microprocessor as corresponding structure for a software function does nothing to limit the scope of the claim and “avoid pure functional claiming.” Further, the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191–92 (1981)). As such, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
For prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure see Notice of References Cited items A-E submitted 08/17/2022 used as prior art and in the conclusion section in the office action submitted 08/17/2022.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
02/01/2026