METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING A PRICE

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the Pre-AIA first to invent provisions. This office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on July 29, 2026 in which claims 2, 9 and 16 are amended. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 21 were previously cancelled. Thus, claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-13, and 16-20 are pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2. 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 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 2 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 9 and 16. The claims 2-3 and 5-6 are directed to a system, claims 9-13 are directed to a method and claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). The claim 2 recites : communication circuitry; memory storing instructions, and a plurality of orders received from an order management system (OMS); and at least one processor operably coupled to the communication circuitry and the memory, wherein the instructions are executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to: receive, via the communication circuitry, a firm order query, and initiate a first query, including: receiving, via the communication circuitry, an indication of desired filters from one or more external systems or from one or more traders, processing, by the at least one processor, the received indication of desired filters, filtering the received firm order query based on the received indication of desired filters prior to transmitting any corresponding requests associated with trades related to buy and sell order, thereby reducing an overall quantity of network traffic with the one or more external systems, wherein the desired filters are applied in a distributed fashion across the one or more external systems prior to transmission of the corresponding requests, determining whether a matching order exists by determining whether any of the stored plurality of orders matches the firm order query, and accessing, via the communication circuitry, an OMS of a buy side terminal for an order that matches the firm order query, based on determining that no matches exist for the firm order query, terminating the first query, wherein the first query is terminated without providing any output indication that no matching order exists for the firm order query among the stored plurality of orders, thereby increasing data security of the system, based on determining that a matching order exists for the firm order query from among the stored plurality of orders, providing a graphical user interface indicating the matching order to a remote terminal associated with the firm order query, wherein the graphical user interface includes a button, and executing a trade, the trade fulfilling at least a part of the matching order, in response to selection of the button, calculate, by the at least one processor, a market price of a financial instrument based on a highest bid and a highest offer for the financial instrument; determine, by the at least one processor, a sale reservation price increment for sale of a predetermined quantity of the financial instrument; calculate, by the at least one processor, a sale reservation price based on the sale reservation price increment and the market price; generate, by the at least one processor, a sell order for the financial instrument at a price determined based on the sale reservation price for the predetermined quantity; and output, via the communication circuitry, the sell order to an electronic marketplace; wherein the plurality of orders is associated with a corresponding plurality of order data records stored in the memory, wherein each of the plurality of order data records includes a field storing an identity of trader making the associated order, a status field indicating whether the associated order was executed, and a time stamp indicating the time the order data record was last modified; and wherein the graphical user interface includes a trader-modifiable order-size field and a percentage-or-number-of-traders-who-may-view-the-order field. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that covers Certain methods of organizing human activity such as Commercial or legal interactions or Fundamental economic principles or practices. Executing a trade order can be classified under Commercial or legal interactions. The claim also recites the communication circuitry, a memory, external systems, an order management system (OMS), a processor, a buy-side terminal, a graphical user interface and a remote terminal which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, the communication circuitry, a memory, external systems, an order management system (OMS), a processor, a buy-side terminal, a graphical user interface and a remote terminal, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 2 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the communication circuitry, a memory, external systems, an order management system (OMS), a processor, a buy-side terminal, a graphical user interface and a remote terminal result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of the communication circuitry, a memory, external systems, an order management system (OMS), a processor, a buy-side terminal, a graphical user interface and a remote terminal to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 13-14, [0084-0085], [0214]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of the communication circuitry, a memory, external systems, an order management system (OMS), a processor, a buy-side terminal, a graphical user interface and a remote terminal are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO). The claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the communication circuitry, a memory, external systems, an order management system (OMS), a processor, a buy-side terminal, a graphical user interface and a remote terminal, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not amount to significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 2 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO). Similar analysis can he extended to other independent claims 9 and 16 and hence the claims 9 and 16 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 2. In addition, claim 16 also recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium that amounts to generic computer implementation. The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 10-13 and 17-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only define the abstract idea further and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 10-13 and 17-20 do not recite any new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 2, 9 and 16 and hence require no further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B. Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-13, and 16-20 are ineligible. No Prior Art Rejections 3. Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-13, and 16-20. While some individual features of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-13, and 16-20 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-13, and 16-20. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are : 1) Sweeting et al. (US Patent 7,827,089 B2) – This invention relates to systems and methods for trading within a spread market for a particular item. More particularly, systems and methods are provided to trade a particular item at the midprice of the spread market while maintaining anonymity of the order. A midprice order may remain active until it is traded with a contra midprice order or until a parameter associated with the order is breached, thereby resulting in cancellation of the midprice order. 2) Korhammer et al. (US Patent 6,278,982 B1) –The present invention generally relates to computer systems for trading and analyzing selected securities, and more particularly, software that aggregates and integrates securities trading information and order placement from various alternative trading Systems ("ATS”), such as electronic communication networks (“ECN"), with NASDAQ or other electronic exchanges. 3) Renshaw et al. (U.S. 2014/0108295 A1) – It discloses a method for constructing investment portfolios designed to capture a performance premium associated with low volatility and minimum volatility portfolios. More particularly, it relates to improved computer based systems, methods and software for construction of portfolios using optimization by reducing the portfolio’s active sector exposures, commonly referred to as unintended bets, while preserving a strong tilt in a predetermined direction. Response to Arguments 4. Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons: 5. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 2 (pages 12-15), Applicant argues that, “the presently pending claims recite a specific, practical application that is more than the abstract idea, and thus it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: • Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a) • Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo • Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b) • Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c) • Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Filtering orders based on the characteristics of an order is abstract and hence do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. There is nothing technological per se in reducing the scope of work to be performed by filtering out that which is not pertinent. "A time stamp indicating a time the order data record was last modified" may improve the business process of market trading, but it does not improve the functioning of the computer. A graphical user interface is simply a display mechanism and does not improve the functioning of the computer. Including a trader modifiable order-size field and a percentage-or-number of traders who may view the order field may improve the business process of market trading, but it does not improve the functioning of the computer. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (MPEP 2106.05(a) II). All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26-39, not on improving computers or technology.”). Features like "reducing network traffic" and "increasing data security" are phrased as results rather than specific, technical mechanisms. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (1) (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”), (3) (“describes “the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished” and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result”). The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. An improvement in abstract idea is still abstract (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The specification describes the additional elements of the communication circuitry, a memory, external systems, an order management system (OMS), a processor, a buy-side terminal, a graphical user interface and a remote terminal to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 13-14, [0084-0085], [0214]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of the communication circuitry, a memory, external systems, an order management system (OMS), a processor, a buy-side terminal, a graphical user interface and a remote terminal, are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. Accessing an OMS of a buy side terminal using the communication circuitry as a tool to perform the abstract idea of matching an order query does not improve the technology. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained. Examiner Request 6. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance. Conclusion 7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 lee 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 BHAVIN D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BHAVIN D SHAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3694 October 2, 2026 /BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694