DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is of the opinion that Claims are not directed to abstract idea. Claims are integrated into a practical application. Claims recite computer implemented rules for substituting financial instruments during a trade is a novel approach to market trading. The claims recite improvement in technology by substitutability rules are a particular solution to the problem of low liquidity. Claims are similar to BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility and McRO, and integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite performing a financial trade transaction which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “collecting orders…; identifying and displaying the orders…; determining (a) whether the orders…, (b) whether a second participant…, and (c) whether based on the market information…; wherein if the price satisfy the criteria…: notify…; and execute the order…; and a response matching the orders…of the second participant.” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for collecting and displaying orders, determine an order satisfy criteria of rule, determining a second participant registered participant, determining price of the financial instruments satisfied the criteria, notify the participant if price satisfies criteria and second participant is registered participant, and execute a trade transaction which is a process that deals with fundamental economic principles and commercial interactions, and more specifically involves performing a financial trade transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106). Also, the additional elements of computer technology merely automate the abstract idea. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements such as processor and server, merely automates and implements the abstract idea to perform the functions. The devices do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, the claim continues to be non-statutory. (MPEP 2106).
Additionally, “substitutability rules to solve a low liquidity” is a business process not a technical improvement.
With respect to novelty arguments, Examiner notes that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty (See MPEP 2106.04(I)).
Claims are not similar to BASCOM (BASCOM Global Internet Service inc. v. ATT&T Mobility LLC.) because BASCOM is clearly not applicable to the instant claims as in BASCOM, where the court determined that there was an ordered combination of conventional components that provided for filtering of internet content based on the location of a filtering component in a network. On the other hand, claims recite collecting and displaying orders, determine an order satisfy criteria of rule, determining a second participant registered participant, determining price of the financial instruments satisfied the criteria, notify the participant if price satisfies criteria and second participant is registered participant, and execute a trade transaction which is a process that deals with fundamental economic principles and commercial interactions, and more specifically involves performing a financial trade transaction.
The claims are not in any way similar to McRO as the claims do not make any technological improvement to any algorithm in performing improvement to animation techniques. Clearly this is simply a gratuitous citation to a case that was held as eligible when the facts clearly argue against any kind of McRO improvement. The claims clearly directed to performing a financial trade transaction which is an abstract idea.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 2-15 have been examined.
Claim 1 has been canceled by the Applicant.
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 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 2-14 are directed to a system, claim 15 is directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite performing a financial trade transaction which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “collecting orders…; identifying and displaying the orders…; determining (a) whether the orders…, (b) whether a second participant…, and (c) whether based on the market information…; wherein if the price satisfy the criteria…: notify…; and execute the order…; and a response matching the orders…of the second participant” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for collecting and displaying orders, determine an order satisfy criteria of rule, determining a second participant registered participant, determining price of the financial instruments satisfied the criteria, notify the participant if price satisfies criteria and second participant is registered participant, and execute a trade transaction, which is a process that deals with fundamental economic principles and commercial interactions, and more specifically involves performing a financial trade transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
Additionally, the claims are directed toward mathematical operations (i.e., encryption) which is the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case organizing human activity and a mathematical concept, is still an abstract idea. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as, processor, memory and server, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the processor, memory and server from claims perform the steps or functions of collecting and displaying orders, determine an order satisfy criteria of rule, determining a second participant registered participant, determining price of the financial instruments satisfied the criteria, notify the participant if price satisfies criteria and second participant is registered participant, and execute a trade transaction. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of processor, memory and server to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of performing a financial trade transaction. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the processor, memory, and server perform the steps or functions of collecting and displaying orders, determine an order satisfy criteria of rule, determining a second participant registered participant, determining price of the financial instruments satisfied the criteria, notify the participant if price satisfies criteria and second participant is registered participant, and execute a trade transaction. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of performing a trade transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea of performing a financial trade transaction. Specifically, claims 3, 5-10 and 12 describing data which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 11 reciting specifying that the matching orders should be executed and providing a rating which is also part of the abstract idea of performing a financial trade transaction. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697