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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final office action is in response to the application filed on September 26, 2022, the amendments to the claims filed on June 26, 2024, the Request for Continued Examination filed on December 11, 2024, the amendments to the claims filed on March 26, 2025, the Request for Continued Examination filed on June 24, 2025, the amendments to the claims filed on November 24, 2025, and the Request for Continued Examination filed on March 12, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 12, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of record.
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, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 8 and product Claim 15. Claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving data for a plurality of past financial trades; generating a data model for the plurality of past financial trades using the received data; training a machine learning model using the data model for the plurality of past financial trades; receiving one or more parameters for a subject financial trade among a plurality of recently executed financial trades; determining, based on the one or more parameters and a weight value input by a user, a likelihood that the subject financial trade will fail using the trained machine learning model; determining a most likely reason that the subject financial trade will fail using the trained machine learning model; and displaying a user interface including a user interface element, and including the most likely reason that the subject financial trade will fail to a user, wherein the displaying comprises displaying the user interface element on a field with a first axis representing a settlement date and a second axis representing a probability of failure, locating the user interface element on the field based on the settlement date and the probability of failure, displaying an attribute of the user interface element to indicate a type of transaction of the financial trade as a buy transaction or a sell transaction and sizing the user interface element to indicate a value of the financial trade wherein the displaying further comprises displaying the most likely reason that the subject financial trade will fail in response to a selection of the user interface element from the field, wherein each of the location, the attribute, and the size of the user interface element is viewable prior to selection of the user interface element.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Transaction settlement prediction recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The data storage device and processor in Claim 8 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. It is noted that there are no hardware elements recited in Claims 1 and 15. The generating a data model, training/trained machine learning model, and user interface are also recited in Claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 8 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite data storage device and processor in Claim 8 and also recite generating a data model, training/trained machine learning model, and user interface in Claims 1, 8, and 15. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. Therefore claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0046, 0048] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using ML merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2105(h). 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. Thus claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 further include using successful trades as the data to retrain the machine learning model software; Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 further define the data used to determine if a trade is likely to fail; Claims 7 and 14 further include tuning the machine learning model. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 11-15), are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments try to establish eligibility through Office Examples, specifically, the Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent. Regarding example 23, the graphical user interface in question managed the interaction between a computer system and a user through graphical elements such as windows on a display. The inventor improved upon previous GUIs by dynamically relocating obscured textual information of an underlying window to become automatically viewable to a user. Thus, the claim was determined to be necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in graphical user interfaces. The current claims do not purport to have a technological solution to a technological problem as they focus on displaying information and not on a problem specifically arising in user interfaces. Therefore, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are, “necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in graphical user interface” (Remarks, page 13) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the specification. The specification sets forth that the problem the disclosure is seeking to solve is, “non-automated monitoring of a broad number of trades still pending settlement, if conducted without insight into which trades are most likely to result in failed settlements, may result in resources expended post-execution on trades that fail to settle, or may result in resources expended monitoring trades that were not in danger of failing to settle[.]” (paragraph [0003]). Therefore, the specification does not set forth that there is a problem specifically arising in graphical user interfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached on (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
4/15/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights