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 .
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1, 14 or 27 is directed to a method or a system, which falls under a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, the following limitations are directed towards the abstract idea of trading based on mathematical model/formula, specifically: “introducing into financial instrument exchange market, a financial instrument characterized by an expiration and a definition of a first underlying asset to be both determined and physically delivered upon the defined expiration, the financial instrument having been generated for trading by selecting a currently available futures contract characterized by a price and having a second underlying asset whose value is characterized by a selected characteristic, the price of the selected futures contract being indicative of market expectations of the second underlying asset's future value, wherein the definition specifies a set of options contracts as the first underlying asset, each having the selected futures contract as an underlier thereof, each of the set of options contract being characterized by a different strike price, relative to a price of the selected futures contract, to be determined upon the expiration of the generated financial instrument, wherein the strike price of each of the set of options contracts differs from price of the selected futures contract determined upon the expiration of the generated financial instrument by an interval, where upon subsequent to the introducing, the financial instrument is automatically listed for trading; establishing a reduced precision data structure configured to artificially increase a log quantity of a variance for the set of options contracts thereby sacrificing tail risk modeling accuracy for reduced processing load and increased solution time stability, the processing load associated with repeated generation of a volatility index financial instrument having a value that is determined from an annualized forward volatility metric; determining, via the reduced precision data structure and subsequent to the financial instrument being listed for trading and within one second of a previous determination to support at least near-real-time update, a current price of the introduced generated financial instrument based on trading thereof and generating an annualized forward volatility metric ("VolPOP") by: calculating:
PNG
media_image1.png
145
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where: T is time to expiry, in years, of the set of options contracts from the defined expiration of the introduced generated financial instrument; K is a current at-the-money strike; F is a forward price of the selected futures contract; r is a rate; and Q(O) represents the price of an ith option; and repeatedly generating, with a periodicity of one second or less, the volatility index financial instrument having the value that is determined from the generated annualized forward volatility metric and subsequent thereto, introducing the generated volatility index financial instrument into a financial instrument exchange market for trading, the at least one volatility index financial instrument having at least one parameter corresponding to the generated annualized forward volatility metric, listing reducing a transaction request.” These limitations are directed to concepts of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, the following claim limitations are considered additional elements: “A computer implemented method, an electronic via network based messaging over a computer network from an electronic exchange computer system, by a contract generator executed by a processor coupled therewith, by an index generator executed by the processor, from the electronic exchange computer system, by the processor, by the processor, via the electronic exchange computer system where it is automatically listed; the automatic l message volume via increased match accuracy, thereby reducing a network messaging load of the computer network” and “A system comprising: a processor and a memory coupled therewith; and computer executable program code stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the processor to network based messaging over a computer network from an electronic exchange computer system; the automatic l message volume via increased match accuracy, thereby reducing a network messaging load of the computer network”. These limitations amount to no more than generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, when viewing the claim as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the judicial exception to a generic computer. This is supported by the specification which describes the computer system in merely generic terms in at least [043]. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, claim 1, 14 and 27 are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-13, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claims 15-26, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 14. Claims 15-26 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 2/24/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of applicant’s claim amendment. The objection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 2/24/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of applicant’s claim amendment. The objection of claim 27 has been withdrawn.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment in the office action described above.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 citing Finjan, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the patentable claims in Finjan, the current claims recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions and mathematical concepts as shown in the office action above. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's arguments alleging the claims are similar to that of DDR Holdings, as they are performed on the internet, this is not persuasive. Applicant's claims do precisely what DDR Holdings explains is fatal to many computer-based patents: "recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet." Id. (emphasis added). Thus, DDR Holdings is readily distinguishable from the present claims. The patent at issue in DDR provided an Internet-based solution to solve a problem unique to the Internet that (1) did not foreclose other ways of solving the problem, and (2) recited a specific series of steps that resulted in a departure from the routine and conventional sequence of events after the click of a hyperlink advertisement. Id. at 1256–57, 1259. The claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet, so DDR has no applicability. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regards to Bascom, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, they use the unconventional step of filtering Internet content using ISP. The filtering was performing remote server rather than local server. In Bascom, they provided technical basis and provided non-conventional and non-routine way of changing the filtering of Internet content using ISP. Unlike Bascom, the current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The current claims do not recite anything non-conventional and non-routine. The claim is merely gathered information of information over conventional network. Therefore, applicant’s argument with respect Bascom is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument with regard to Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., the examiner respectfully disagrees. Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. is not analogous to the current claims. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument with regard to Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LI, UAB, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG, at 1 (E. D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2021) (Gilstrap, J.) decision, the examiner respectfully disagrees these decisions are analogous to the current claims and determinative for the current 101 analysis. Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LI, UAB, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG, at 1 (E. D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2021) (Gilstrap, J.) case is non-precedential decision and therefore not given weight. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regards to Enfish, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, they made improvement to database technology. Unlike Enfish, the current case is directly to conventional and generic use of financial account authentication, which doesn't make any improvement to the computer technology. In the current claim limitation, the computer is generic computer. The applicant has not improved the computer. In the current claim limitation, the processor is generic processor. The applicant has not improved the processor. Therefore, applicant's arguments with respect to Enfish is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Berkheimer Memo and additional elements not well-understood, routine, and conventional, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The current claims do not recite anything non-conventional and non-routine. The claim is merely gathered information of information over conventional network. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Ex Parte Annakov, Appeal No. 2023-003538 of U.S. App. No. 16/902,544 (PTAB 2024), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ex Parte Annakov, Appeal No. 2023-003538 of U.S. App. No. 16/902,544 (PTAB 2024) is not precedential, so Ex Parte Annakov, Appeal No. 2023-003538 of U.S. App. No. 16/902,544 (PTAB 2024) does not have authority for deciding other cases. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to specification, the limitations that applicant argues in the specifications are not recited in the claims. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the limitations in the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. The claimed invention does not recite improvement to another technology or another technical field or the computing device. The claimed invention does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695