DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 31, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination dated August 31, 2026.
2. Claims 1, 4-5, 21, and 23-24 have been amended.
3. Claims 1, 4-11, 21 and 23-32 are currently pending and have been examined.
4. Claims 2-3, 12-20 and 22 have been cancelled.
5. Claims 30-32 are newly added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
6. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
7. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
While all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
As in Claim 1:
receiving, from the client device, data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position, the initial position indicative of a default value of the first parameter and the updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter, wherein the first visual representation comprises a horizontal line and the first parameter is a price associated with the derivative, and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price;
Here, the active method step is receiving data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representations. The wherein clause is attempting to present actions that are not actively being claimed.
As in Claim 21:
receiving, from the client device, data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position, the initial position indicative of a default value of the first parameter and the updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter, wherein the first visual representation comprises a horizontal line and the first parameter is a price associated with the derivative, and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price;
Here, the active method step executed within the CRM is receiving data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representations. The wherein clause is attempting to present actions that are not actively being claimed.
As in Claim 31:
receiving, from the client device, data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position, the initial position indicative of a default value of the first parameter and the updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter, wherein the first visual representation comprises a horizontal line and the first parameter is a price associated with the derivative, and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price;
Here, the active step executed within the CRM of the system is receiving data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representations. The wherein clause is attempting to present actions that are not actively being claimed.
As in Claim 5 and substantially similarly in Claim 32:
receiving, from the client device, additional data describing additional user input moving a second visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a second parameter of the parameters from a second initial position to a second updated position, the second initial position indicative of a default value of the second parameter and the updated position indicative of an updated value of the second parameter, wherein the second visual representation comprises a vertical line and the second parameter is a time associated with the derivative, moving the first visual representation comprises moving the vertical line from a first x-coordinate corresponding to a first time to a second x-coordinate corresponding to a second time and determining the updated contours further uses the updated value of the second parameter.
Here, the active method step is receiving additional data describing additional user input moving a second visual representation of the visual representations. The wherein clause is attempting to present actions that are not being actively claimed.
As in Claims 10 and 28:
further comprising receiving an indication that a user has selected a lock control in the information-dense user interface that locks a value of a locked parameter of the additional parameters, wherein determining the updated values of one or more additional parameters of the derivative comprises calculating updated values for other ones of the additional parameters without changing the value of the locked parameter.
As in Claim 24:
receiving, from the client device, additional data describing additional user input moving a second visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a second parameter of the parameters from a second initial position to a second updated position, the second initial position indicative of a default value of the second parameter and the updated position indicative of an updated value of the second parameter, wherein the second visual representation comprises a vertical line and the second parameter is a time associated with the derivative, moving the second visual representation comprises moving the vertical line from a first x-coordinate corresponding to a first time to a second x-coordinate corresponding to a second time and determining the updated contours further uses the updated value of the second parameter.
Here, the active method step executed within the CRM is receiving additional data describing additional user input moving a second visual representation of the visual representations. The wherein clause is attempting to present actions that are not being actively claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1, 4-11, 21 and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
As amended, Claim 1 (and substantially similar Claims 21 and 31) recite in part: “causing, by a server, display of an information-dense user interface by a client device, the information-dense user interface including a historical data portion and a parameter-definition portion, the historical data portion depicting historical price data for the derivative and the parameter-definition portion including visual representations of the parameters of the derivative, wherein positions of the visual representations indicate default values for the parameters of the derivative, and wherein the parameter-definition portion further includes an overlay or underlay comprising contours, each contour indicating a corresponding rate of return with regard to a premium and a price parameter of the derivative on a vertical axis relative to time on a horizontal axis”.
Here, it is unclear how many steps are involved in “causing” a display of an information-dense user interface by a client device…” and the manner in which the independent claims are currently recited appears to indicate that a display of a client device, without the use of any other elements could be caused by a server to perform the method/CRM/system claims – which is not the case. Applicant’s specification indicates that it is not just a server or a client device, rather it is an networked computing environment that provides a trading app with an information-dense user interface that also includes an analytics server, a market data datastore, one or more client devices and a trading platform, all connected via a network. (See Applicant Spec para 31 and Fig. 1) The client devices are presenting one or more user interfaces for displaying information regarding assets generated by the analytics server. (See Applicant Spec para 34) The trading platform includes one or more computing devices that receive transaction parameters to implement a defined transaction and may provide updates to the client device or the analytics server. (See Applicant Spec para 36)
In one embodiment of a client device that may be used to interact with the analytics server, the client device includes a trading app and local datastores and may include different or additional elements. (See Applicant Spec para 56 and Fig. 3) The trading app 310 is software that executes on the client device 140 to enable interaction with the analytics server where the trading app may include a communications module 312 and a rendering engine 314. (See Applicant Spec para 57) The communications module sends requests for data to the analytics server over the network and receives/processes data and requests received from the analytics server. (See Applicant Spec para 57) The rendering engine causes the client device to display various user interfaces driven by data provided by the analytics server and determines if additional data is required to service user requests. (See Applicant Spec para 57)
Applicant’s specification further details, from paragraphs 58-62, a user opening a trading app and selecting a user interface to initiate from a menu, initiating the derivative-definition user interface and may include a historical price portion and a parameter-definition portion where the historical data portion may further include additional overlays/underlays and the parameter-definition portion provides a visual representation of the current parameter values where a user may modify a parameter value by interacting with the corresponding visual representation.
The steps being claimed are not natively resident in “a server” or “a client device” without the use of a trading app that is connected to the system and networked components as disclosed in the specification to effectuate any of the steps being claimed.
The claim scope of the claims presented is thus unclear as the structure that would be needed to enable the process to proceed causes the metes and bounds of the claims to be unclear. Clarification and correction is required. Dependent claims 4-11, 23-30 and 32 are further rejected as based on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
9. Claims 5-6 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As amended, Claim 1 recites in part “receiving, from the client device, data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position, the initial position indicative of a default value of the first parameter any updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter, wherein the first visual representation comprises a horizontal line and the first parameter is a price associated with the derivative, and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizonal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price”
Dependent claim 5 then recites “receiving, from the client device, additional data describing additional user input moving a second visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a second parameter of the parameters from a second initial position to a second updated position, the second initial position indicative of a default value of the second parameter and the updated position indicative of an updated value of the second parameter, wherein:
second visual representation comprises a vertical line and second parameter is a time associated with the derivative, moving the first visual representation comprises moving the vertical line from a first x-coordinate corresponding to a first time to a second x-coordinate corresponding to a second time and determining the updated contours further uses the updated value of the second parameter.
Claim 1 has already established the first visual representation and in the wherein clause, claims that the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price.
Claim 5 cannot then reframe the first visual representation as moving the vertical line from a first x-coordinate corresponding to a first time to a second x-coordinate corresponding to a second time without violating 112(d) as the claim fails to include all of the limitations upon which it depends and further fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Dependent claim 6 is further rejected as based upon a rejected base claim.
Dependent claim 32 has a substantially similar issue which is similarly rejected for the same basis and reasons.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
10. Claims 1, 4-11, 21 and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a method claim. Claim 21 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim. Claim 31 recites a system claim.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of displaying, receiving and updating data for derivative pricing positions. The idea is described by the following limitations:
causing, display of a historical data portion and a parameter-definition portion, the historical data portion depicting historical price data for the derivative and the parameter-definition portion including visual representations of the parameters of the derivative, wherein positions of the visual representations indicate default values for the parameters of the derivative, and wherein the parameter-definition portion further includes an overlay or underlay comprising contours, each contour indicating a corresponding rate of return with regard to a premium and a price parameter of the derivative on a vertical axis relative to time on a horizontal axis;
receiving data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representation that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter, wherein the first visual representation comprises a horizontal line and the first parameter is a price associated with the derivative, and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price;
determining updated values of one or more additional parameters of the derivative using the updated value of the first parameter, wherein determining the updated values comprises:
retrieving precalculated values of the one or more additional parameters for the expected values of the first parameter; and
interpolating the updated values of the one or more additional parameters for the updated value of the first parameter using the precalculated values;
determining updated contours using the updated value of the first parameter and the updated values of the one or more additional parameters; and
causing display of the updated values of the one or more additional parameters for the derivative and the updated contours.
Claim 21 recites the abstract idea of displaying, receiving and updating data for derivative pricing positions. The idea is described by the following limitations:
causing, display of a historical data portion and a parameter-definition portion, the historical data portion depicting historical price data for the derivative and the parameter-definition portion including visual representations of the parameters of the derivative, wherein positions of the visual representations indicate default values for the parameters of the derivative, and wherein the parameter-definition portion further includes an overlay or underlay comprising contours, each contour indicating a corresponding rate of return with regard to a premium and a price parameter of the derivative on a vertical axis relative to time on a horizontal axis;
receiving data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representation that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position, the initial position indicative of a default value of the first parameter and the updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter, wherein the first visual representation comprises a horizontal line and the first parameter is a price associated with the derivative, and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second value of the price;
determining updated values of one or more additional parameters of the derivative using the updated value of the first parameter, wherein determining the updated values comprises:
retrieving precalculated values of the one or more additional parameters for expected values of the first parameter; and
interpolating the updated values of the one or more additional parameters for the updated value of the first parameter using the precalculated values;
determining updated contours using the updated value of the first parameter and the updated values of the one or more additional parameters; and
causing display of the updated values of the one or more additional parameters for the derivative and the updated contours.
Claim 31 recites the abstract idea of displaying, receiving and updating data for derivative pricing positions. The idea is described by the following limitations:
causing, display of a historical data portion and a parameter-definition portion, the historical data portion depicting historical price data for the derivative and the parameter-definition portion including visual representations of the parameters of the derivative, wherein positions of the visual representations indicate default values for the parameters of the derivative, and wherein the parameter-definition portion further includes an overlay or underlay comprising contours, each contour indicating a corresponding rate of return with regard to a premium and a price parameter of the derivative on a vertical axis relative to time on a horizontal axis;
receiving data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representation that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position, the initial position indicative of a default value of the first parameter and the updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter, wherein the first visual representation comprises a horizontal line and the first parameter is a price associated with the derivative, and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second value of the price;
determining updated values of one or more additional parameters of the derivative using the updated value of the first parameter, wherein determining the updated values comprises:
retrieving precalculated values of the one or more additional parameters for expected values of the first parameter; and
interpolating the updated values of the one or more additional parameters for the updated value of the first parameter using the precalculated values;
determining updated contours using the updated value of the first parameter and the updated values of the one or more additional parameters; and
causing display of the updated values of the one or more additional parameters for the derivative and the updated contours.
Under a BRI, the claims reflect no more than displaying historical and parameter data related to derivative pricing positions and displaying updated positions indicative of updated values of the derivative received from a user.
As a result, the abstract ideas describe certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve fundamental economic principles or practices (derivative pricing and updated derivative pricing - mitigating risk; hedging); and commercial interactions (defining parameters for a derivative, updating the parameters to predict outcomes of pricing of the derivative - business relations)
As to mathematical concepts, the steps involve mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships to calculate relationships between historical price data, initial positions and updated values for parameter(s) for the derivative.
In the case of the instant claims, the claims recite no more than receiving historical price data and data related to default values for the parameters of a derivative’s outcomes that are visually represented with outcomes plotted on horizontal and vertical axes corresponding to time and price; receiving user input updating positions visually, and determining updated values and contours for one or more additional parameters. (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites a server, a client device, and an information-dense user interface. Claim 21 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, an information-dense user interface, a computing system including one or more computing devices, a server, and a client device. Claim 31 recites one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instructions, a server, an information-dense user interface, and a client device.
In particular, the claims only recite an information-dense user interface, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, a server, a client device, one or more processors, instructions, and a computing system including one or more computing devices which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Use of a computer 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 the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.)
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, 21 and 31 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)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; performing repetitive calculations; storing and retrieving information in memory and electronically scanning or extracting data as well as setting or determining a price– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“FIG. 1 illustrates one embodiment of a networked computing environment 100 suitable for providing a trading app with an information-dense user interface. In the embodiment, shown, the networked computing environment 100 includes an analytics server 110, a market data datastore 130, one or more client devices 140A, 140B,…, 140N, and a trading platform 150, all connected via a network 170. In other embodiments, the networked computing environment 100 includes different or additional elements. In addition, the functions may be distributed among the elements in a different manner than described.” (See Applicant Spec para 31)
“FIG. 12 is a block diagram of an example computer 1200 suitable for use as an analytics server 110, client device 140, or trading platform 150, etc. The example computer 1200 includes at least one processor 1202 coupled to a chipset 1204. The chipset 1204 includes a memory controller hub 1220 and an input/output (I/O) controller hub 1222. A memory 1206 and a graphics adapter 1212 are coupled to the memory controller hub 1220, and a display 1218 is coupled to the graphics adapter 1212. A storage device 1208, keyboard 1210, pointing device 1214, and network adapter 1216 are coupled to the I/O controller hub 1222. Other embodiments of the computer 1200 have different architectures.” (See Applicant Spec para 88)
“In the embodiment shown in FIG. 12, the storage device 1208 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium such as a hard drive, compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), DVD, or a solid-state memory device. The memory 1206 holds instructions and data used by the processor 1202. The pointing device 1214 is a mouse, track ball, touchscreen, or other type of pointing device, and may be used in combination with the keyboard 1210 (which may be an on-screen keyboard) to input data into the computer 1200. The graphics adapter 1212 displays images and other information on the display 1218. The network adapter 1216 couples the computer system 1200 to one or more computer networks, such as network 170.” (See Applicant Spec para 89)
“The types of computers used by the entities of FIGS. 1 through 3 can vary depending upon the embodiment and the processing power required by the entity. For example, the market data datastore 130 might include multiple blade servers working together to provide the functionality described. Furthermore, the computers can lack some of the components described above, such as keyboards 1010, graphics adapters 1012, and displays 1018.” (See Applicant Spec para 90)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
The independent claims 1, 21 and 31 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 4-11, 23-30 and 32 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent Claims 1, 21 and 31 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above.
Regarding Claims 7 and 25, the claims further disclose retrieving precalculated price data for the type of derivative from a datastore. Regarding Claims 10 and 28, the claims further disclose that a user has selected a lock control and Claims 11 and 29 further detail that the locked parameter is a cost to obtain the derivative.
No further additional components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1, 4-11, 21 and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claims 1, 4-11, 21 and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0056629) (“Foley”) in view of Klock et al. (WO2022/240940) (“Klock”)
Regarding Claim 1, Foley discloses the following:
A method comprising:
causing, by a server, display of an information-dense user interface by a client device, the information-dense user interface including a historical data portion and a parameter-definition portion, the historical data portion depicting historical price data for the derivative and the parameter-definition portion including visual representations of the parameters of the derivative, wherein positions of the visual representations indicate default values for the parameters of the derivative, and wherein the parameter-definition portion further includes an overlay or underlay comprising contours, each contour indicating a corresponding rate of return with regard to a premium and a price parameter of the derivative on a vertical axis relative to time on a horizontal axis; (See Foley paras 2, 11-12, 28-33, 34-37, 41-42, 53-54, 56, 59-60, 61-62, 65-67, 75, Cl. 13, Figs. 2, 4A-C, 5, 7-9 - inventions related to systems and methods for constructing comparing and trading of equity and equity derivative securities; utilize a dynamic, interactive, real-time expected move chart as a graphical interface for user price target and other inputs; incorporates dynamic visualizations of trade payouts and outcome probabilities on the same graphical interface as used to construct the trade; interactive options market information visualization tool includes company identifying information, event indicators, and expected move selector which permits a user to select from a plurality of pre-populated time periods for which to calculate stock price “expected move” or “implied move” and represent the results in the visualization tool, e.g., as lines on a graph or similar chart; visualization presents a graph or chart illustrating the selected stock’s past performance [historical data portion] and current price and a vertical line separating the graphical illustration of past performance from the bullish and bearish expected move consensus representations [parameter definition portion including contours indicating corresponding outcome relative to time on a horizontal axis and corresponding price on a vertical axis; once a price target is selected, the visualization toll is operable to create a hypothetical trading scenario where additional details corresponding to the date along the data axis and price axis and additional details will be provided in a pop up box (seen on top of the interface); executed trade visualization may also include comparison summary which may include comparison data for various parameters concerning the executed trade at the time it was created, for example, trade price [price parameter of the derivative], current returns [rate of return], days to expiry; see also Figs. 4C, 5, 7-9 disclosing executed trade visualizations on top of the existing interface and additional lines showing profit/loss)
receiving, from the client device, data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position, the initial position indicative of a default value of the first parameter any updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter, wherein the first visual representation comprises a horizontal line and the first parameter is a price associated with the derivative, and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price; (See Foley paras 2, 32-36, 40-41, 53, 56, 59-60, 62, 66-67,Figs. 3, 4A-B, 4C, 7-8 – once values for expected move are calculated and visually rendered on visualization tool, a user can interact with a visualization tool using a selection tool, a user may indicate a market sentiment to automatically generate a price target selection [receive user input], for example, user selection of “I’M BEARISH”; “I’M NEUTRAL”; or “I’M BULLISH” and the visualization tool will generate a price target selection that corresponds to the bullish or bearish expected move consensus as appropriate. In another embodiment, user can select a price target directly. Once a price target is selected by any of these methods, the visualization tool will then prompt the user to select an expiry date (or duration) and the visual representation shown with the updated position)
determining, by the server, updated values of one or more additional parameters of the derivative using the updated value of the first parameter, wherein determining the updated values comprises: (See Foley paras 2, 34-36, 53-54, Figs. 4A-B – in one example, after the price target is updated, if a user wished to view trade details for a given date and a given price target, the user can click on the visualization tool using a selection tool at the position corresponding to that date along the date axis and price axis and additional details will be provided including the price target, the percent higher or lower price target as compared to the current stock price, and the probability of outcome, which can be determined by calculating delta, which is defined as nearest strike of call to the upside and put to the downside, then smoothed across expirations and strikes)
retrieving precalculated values of the one or more additional parameters for expected values of the first parameter; and (See Foley paras 34-38; 50-54)
interpolating the updated values of the one or more additional parameters for the updated value of the first parameter using the precalculated values; (See Foley paras 34-38; 50-54)
determining, by the server, updated contours using the updated value of the first parameter and the updated values of the one or more additional parameters; and (See Foley paras 34-37, 53-54, Figs. 4A-B, 5, 7-8– probability of outcomes dynamically updates every future price point, includes breakeven, return at target, max profit likelihood, gains at target, probability of profit)
causing, by the server, display of an updated information-dense user interface by the client device, the updated information-dense user interface including the updated values of the one or more additional parameters for the derivative and the updated contours. (See Foley paras 34-37, 40-41, 53-54, Figs. 3, 4A-C, 5, 7-8)
Foley discloses the claimed invention except for directly reciting an overlay or underlay comprising contours in the parameter-definition portion, though does describe an executed trade visualization added to the graphical user interface. Foley further discloses data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representation that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter where the visualization tool further presents a graph or chart illustrating the selected stocks’ past performance and current prices as indicated with a solid dot or maneuverable click-and-drop pin and a vertical line separating the graphical illustration of past performance from the bullish and bearish expected move consensus representations. (See Foley para 33) Once the values for the expected move are calculated and visually rendered on visualization tool, a user can interact with the visualization tool using a selection tool, e.g., a mouse indicator or a touch and generate a price target selection and the visualization tool will generate a price target selection that corresponds to the bullish expected move consensus. (See Foley para 34) In another embodiment, a user can select a price target directly. (See Foley para 34) In another embodiment, a user is able to click, using a selection tool, and drag the current price pin to any point along the date axis and release or drop the set price target. (See Foley para 35) The probability of outcome dynamically updates at every future price point and is made available to a user. (See Foley para 35)
Applicant’s specification indicates, that as an example, payout contours may be overlaid on the parameter-definition portion representing multiples of premium over time and that contours could indicate relative return on investment corresponding to a profit, break-even, and/or loss. (See Applicant Spec paras 68-69)
Foley shows that executed trade visualization may further include trade summary information may also include comparison data for various parameters concerning the executed trade at the time created including taking profits, cutting losses and likelihood of breakeven on the same graphical user interface used to construct the trade. (See Foley paras 41-42 and Figs. 4A-C, 5, 7-9)
Executed trade visualization added to the same graphical user interface is an equivalent structure to an overlay as known in the art. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute an overlay comprising contours for an executed trade visualization as taught by Foley.
While Foley discloses data describing user input moving a first visual representation as described above it does not fully disclose directly moving the first visual representation by moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price. While the claim limitations do not clearly indicate actively moving the first visual representation and the receiving step is as to data describing user input, for purposes of compact prosecution Examiner is nonetheless citing additional prior art to disclose that the first visual representation comprises horizontal line and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price.
Klock discloses various data processing systems, user interfaces, application programming interfaces, and related operations for commodity financial data processing scenarios. (See Klock Abstract) In some implementations, a system may provide a graphical user interface (GUI) to customize a financial strategy associated with a commodity delivery contract. (See Klock Abstract) The GUI may include an interactive graph representation having a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, with the vertical axis corresponding to price values and the horizontal axis corresponding to time values of the financial strategy. (See Klock Abstract) The interactive graph representation may provide a vertical user interface control which is capable of horizontal movement to select a time value, and a horizontal user interface control which is capable of vertical movement to select a price value of the financial strategy. (See Klock Abstract)
The user interface functionality discussed herein also may invoke automated approaches to simultaneously display, overlay, and combine information from these separate systems into new visual representations where such visual representations can be interacted with (e.g., selected, modified, adjusted, activated, etc.) by a user, to either create a new commodity contract with a new pricing strategy, or to link an existing commodity contract to a new pricing strategy. (See Klock para 18)
FIGS. 7A to 7F illustrate an example progression of user interface functionality within a user interface 700 (and its accompanying views 700A-700F), used for establishing an advanced pricing strategy for an existing commodity contract. (See Klock para 57 and Figs. 7A-F) It will be understood that is graphical user interface usable with the present approaches may include less, more or different functionality, and that the user interface 700 (and the other user interface examples which are illustrated among FIGS. 8A to 10G) are provided only for purposes of example and illustration. (See Klock para 57)
FIG. 7A begins with an illustration of a user interface view and within this view, a new pricing solution is selected within a user interface screen which includes functionality to selected and indicate contract details. (See Klock para 58) The user interface screen 711 further includes a selection option 715 (e.g., button or other user interface control) to proceed with configuration of the pricing solution. (See Klock para 58)
FIG. 7B continues with an illustration of a user interface view and within this view, a configuration screen for the pricing solution is provided within a user interface screen. (See Klock para 59) The screen also includes an interactive graph representation 730, which can be manipulated and changed by a user. (See Klock para 60) In the shown example, the interactive graph representation has a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, with the vertical axis corresponding to time values and the horizontal axis corresponds to price values. (See Klock para 60 – interactive graph representation has a vertical and horizontal axis, vertical corresponding to time values and the horizontal axis corresponding to price values) Within the graph representation, two vertical user interface controls provided by lines 731, 732 (lines perpendicular to the vertical axis) are used to select a time range (e.g., a date range for the pricing strategy quote). (See Klock para 60)
FIG. 7C continues with an illustration of a user interface for further configuring of the pricing solution first established in view 700B and within this view, the pricing information values have been established to different price values. (See Klock para 61) Each of these price values are also displayed with corresponding vertical interface user controls. (See Klock para 61) The interactive graph representation allows movement of the vertical and horizontal user interface controls among respective positions correspond to different time and price values, respectively (e.g., such as by the user interaction which drags the line to another location on the graph). (See Klock para 61, Fig. 7C – interactive graph representation allows movement of the vertical and horizontal user interface controls to different time and price values, such as by the user dragging the line to another location on the graph [moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price])
FIG. 7D continues with an illustration of a user interface view 700D, which represents the result of generating a quote of the pricing strategy at the time value and the price value (e.g., corresponding to respective positions of the vertical user interface control lines) (See Klock para 62) FIG. 7F continues with an illustration of another user interface view 700F, which provides a user interface screen 761 with additional views of customer information associated with one or more pricing strategies. (See Klock para 64)
FIG. 8A-8G illustrate a progression of user interface functionality used for establishing an advanced pricing strategy for a new commodity contract and the user interface screen also includes an interactive graph representation, providing similar functionality as the interactive graph representation 730. (See Klock paras 65-66) The user interface screen also includes an interactive graph representation, providing similar functionality as the interactive graph representation 730. (See Klock para 66) Thus, a vertical user interface control providing by line 832 can be moved to select different time values (option contract expiration dates) associated with the options contract, and a horizontal user interface control provided by line 831 can be used to specify a different price for the option product details. (See Klock para 66 – vertical user interface control line can be moved to select different time values; horizontal user interface control line can be moved to specify a different price [moving vertical lines to selecting different time values; horizontal user interface control lines can be moved from a first value to a second price])
FIG. 8C continues with a similar user interface specifying a different pricing strategy based on another futures option contract type with multiple prices are specified with horizontal user interface controls provided by lines 833 and 834; the relevant time value associated with the options contract is specified with a vertical user interface control provided by line 835. (See Klock para 67 and FIG. 8C)
The various interactive graph representations 730, 830, 930, 1030, and 1070 were described above with reference to a “vertical axis” and a “horizontal axis”, such as where the vertical axis corresponds to price values and the horizontal axis corresponds to time values but it be understood that such labels and designations are merely illustrative. (See Klock para 83) Further, the designations of the terms “horizontal” and “vertical” for the lines represented among the interactive graph representations 730, 830, 930, 1030, 1070 may be equally described by the terms “first”, “second”, “third”, “fourth”, and so forth and other moveable user interface controls and interactive components may also be used in combination or in substitution of the described lines. (See Klock para 84 – moveable user controls among the interactive graph representations can correspond to first, second, etc. values for the lines represented)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the systems and methods that utilize a dynamic, interactive, real-time expected move chart as a graphical user interface for user price target and other inputs as disclosed by Foley with the systems and user interfaces for commodity financial data processing that include an interactive graph representation having a vertical and horizontal axis that are capable of movement by user interaction dragging the line(s) to another location of the graph as taught by Klock in order to provide additional ways for a user to display, overlay and combine information into new visual representations.
Regarding Claim 21, this claim recites substantially similar limitations as those seen in Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same reasons and basis as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system including one or more computing devices, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (See Foley paras 53-55, 65-66, 69-72, 78-79)
Regarding Claim 31, this claim recites substantially similar limitations as those seen in Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
A computing system comprising:
one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause a server to perform operations comprising: (See Foley paras 53-56, 65-66, 69-72, 78-79)
Regarding Claims 4 and 23, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 21 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
wherein the price associated with the derivative is one of a put price, a spot price, an upper knock out price, a lower knock out price, or a strike price. (See Foley paras 2, 6-7, 32, 34, 50-51)
Regarding Claims 5 and 32, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 31 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley in view of Klock discloses the following:
receiving, from the client device, additional data describing additional user input moving a second visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a second parameter of the parameters from a second initial position to a second updated position, the second initial position indicative of a default value of the second parameter and the updated position indicative of an updated value of the second parameter, wherein:
wherein the second visual representation comprises a vertical line and the second parameter is a time associated with the derivative, moving the first visual representation comprises moving the vertical line from a first x-coordinate corresponding to a first time to a second x-coordinate corresponding to a second time, and (See Foley paras 2, 34-36, 40-41, 53, Figs. 4C, 7-8)
determining the updated contours further uses the updated value of the second parameter. (See Foley paras 2, 7, 34-37, 40-41, 53-54, Figs. 3, 4A-C, 5, 7-9)
Foley discloses the claimed invention except for directly reciting an overlay or underlay comprising contours in the parameter-definition portion, though does describe an executed trade visualization added to the graphical user interface. Foley further discloses data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representation that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter where the visualization tool further presents a graph or chart illustrating the selected stocks’ past performance and current prices as indicated with a solid dot or maneuverable click-and-drop pin and a vertical line separating the graphical illustration of past performance from the bullish and bearish expected move consensus representations. (See Foley para 33) Once the values for the expected move are calculated and visually rendered on visualization tool, a user can interact with the visualization tool using a selection tool, e.g., a mouse indicator or a touch and generate a price target selection and the visualization tool will generate a price target selection that corresponds to the bullish expected move consensus. (See Foley para 34) In another embodiment, a user can select a price target directly. (See Foley para 34) In another embodiment, a user is able to click, using a selection tool, and drag the current price pin to any point along the date axis and release or drop the set price target. (See Foley para 35) The probability of outcome dynamically updates at every future price point and is made available to a user. (See Foley para 35)
Applicant’s specification indicates, that as an example, payout contours may be overlaid on the parameter-definition portion representing multiples of premium over time and that contours could indicate relative return on investment corresponding to a profit, break-even, and/or loss. (See Applicant Spec paras 68-69)
Foley shows that executed trade visualization may further include trade summary information may also include comparison data for various parameters concerning the executed trade at the time created including taking profits, cutting losses and likelihood of breakeven on the same graphical user interface used to construct the trade. (See Foley paras 41-42 and Figs. 4A-C, 5, 7-9)
Executed trade visualization added to the same graphical user interface is an equivalent structure to an overlay as known in the art. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute an overlay comprising contours for an executed trade visualization as taught by Foley.
While Foley discloses data describing user input moving a first visual representation as described above it does not fully disclose directly moving the first visual representation by moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price. While the claim limitations do not clearly indicate actively moving the first visual representation and the receiving step is as to data describing user input, for purposes of compact prosecution Examiner is nonetheless citing additional prior art to disclose that the first visual representation comprises horizontal line and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price. Further, while Foley does indicate user input and additional user input moving visual representations, Klock discloses more clearly moving the visual representations to subsequent second updated positions with updated values.
Klock discloses various data processing systems, user interfaces, application programming interfaces, and related operations for commodity financial data processing scenarios. (See Klock Abstract) In some implementations, a system may provide a graphical user interface (GUI) to customize a financial strategy associated with a commodity delivery contract. (See Klock Abstract) The GUI may include an interactive graph representation having a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, with the vertical axis corresponding to price values and the horizontal axis corresponding to time values of the financial strategy. (See Klock Abstract) The interactive graph representation may provide a vertical user interface control which is capable of horizontal movement to select a time value, and a horizontal user interface control which is capable of vertical movement to select a price value of the financial strategy. (See Klock Abstract)
The user interface functionality discussed herein also may invoke automated approaches to simultaneously display, overlay, and combine information from these separate systems into new visual representations where such visual representations can be interacted with (e.g., selected, modified, adjusted, activated, etc.) by a user, to either create a new commodity contract with a new pricing strategy, or to link an existing commodity contract to a new pricing strategy. (See Klock para 18)
FIGS. 7A to 7F illustrate an example progression of user interface functionality within a user interface 700 (and its accompanying views 700A-700F), used for establishing an advanced pricing strategy for an existing commodity contract. (See Klock para 57 and Figs. 7A-F) It will be understood that is graphical user interface usable with the present approaches may include less, more or different functionality, and that the user interface 700 (and the other user interface examples which are illustrated among FIGS. 8A to 10G) are provided only for purposes of example and illustration. (See Klock para 57)
FIG. 7A begins with an illustration of a user interface view and within this view, a new pricing solution is selected within a user interface screen which includes functionality to selected and indicate contract details. (See Klock para 58) The user interface screen 711 further includes a selection option 715 (e.g., button or other user interface control) to proceed with configuration of the pricing solution. (See Klock para 58)
FIG. 7B continues with an illustration of a user interface view and within this view, a configuration screen for the pricing solution is provided within a user interface screen. (See Klock para 59) The screen also includes an interactive graph representation 730, which can be manipulated and changed by a user. (See Klock para 60) In the shown example, the interactive graph representation has a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, with the vertical axis corresponding to time values and the horizontal axis corresponds to price values. (See Klock para 60 – interactive graph representation has a vertical and horizontal axis, vertical corresponding to time values and the horizontal axis corresponding to price values) Within the graph representation, two vertical user interface controls provided by lines 731, 732 (lines perpendicular to the vertical axis) are used to select a time range (e.g., a date range for the pricing strategy quote). (See Klock para 60)
FIG. 7C continues with an illustration of a user interface for further configuring of the pricing solution first established in view 700B and within this view, the pricing information values have been established to different price values. (See Klock para 61) Each of these price values are also displayed with corresponding vertical interface user controls. (See Klock para 61) The interactive graph representation allows movement of the vertical and horizontal user interface controls among respective positions correspond to different time and price values, respectively (e.g., such as by the user interaction which drags the line to another location on the graph). (See Klock para 61, Fig. 7C – interactive graph representation allows movement of the vertical and horizontal user interface controls to different time and price values, such as by the user dragging the line to another location on the graph [moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price])
FIG. 7D continues with an illustration of a user interface view 700D, which represents the result of generating a quote of the pricing strategy at the time value and the price value (e.g., corresponding to respective positions of the vertical user interface control lines) (See Klock para 62) FIG. 7F continues with an illustration of another user interface view 700F, which provides a user interface screen 761 with additional views of customer information associated with one or more pricing strategies. (See Klock para 64)
FIG. 8A-8G illustrate a progression of user interface functionality used for establishing an advanced pricing strategy for a new commodity contract and the user interface screen also includes an interactive graph representation, providing similar functionality as the interactive graph representation 730. (See Klock paras 65-66) The user interface screen also includes an interactive graph representation, providing similar functionality as the interactive graph representation 730. (See Klock para 66) Thus, a vertical user interface control providing by line 832 can be moved to select different time values (option contract expiration dates) associated with the options contract, and a horizontal user interface control provided by line 831 can be used to specify a different price for the option product details. (See Klock para 66 – vertical user interface control line can be moved to select different time values; horizontal user interface control line can be moved to specify a different price [moving vertical lines to selecting different time values; horizontal user interface control lines can be moved from a first value to a second price])
FIG. 8C continues with a similar user interface specifying a different pricing strategy based on another futures option contract type with multiple prices are specified with horizontal user interface controls provided by lines 833 and 834; the relevant time value associated with the options contract is specified with a vertical user interface control provided by line 835. (See Klock para 67 and FIG. 8C)
The various interactive graph representations 730, 830, 930, 1030, and 1070 were described above with reference to a “vertical axis” and a “horizontal axis”, such as where the vertical axis corresponds to price values and the horizontal axis corresponds to time values but it be understood that such labels and designations are merely illustrative. (See Klock para 83) Further, the designations of the terms “horizontal” and “vertical” for the lines represented among the interactive graph representations 730, 830, 930, 1030, 1070 may be equally described by the terms “first”, “second”, “third”, “fourth”, and so forth and other moveable user interface controls and interactive components may also be used in combination or in substitution of the described lines. (See Klock para 84 – moveable user controls among the interactive graph representations can correspond to first, second, etc. values for the lines represented – second updated position is updated and contours are updated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the systems and methods that utilize a dynamic, interactive, real-time expected move chart as a graphical user interface for user price target and other inputs as disclosed by Foley with the systems and user interfaces for commodity financial data processing that include an interactive graph representation having a vertical and horizontal axis that are capable of movement by user interaction dragging the line(s) to another location of the graph as taught by Klock in order to provide additional ways for a user to display, overlay and combine information into new visual representations.
Regarding Claims 6 and 30, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 5 and 21 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley in view of Klock as disclosed with reference to Claims 5 and 21 as if fully set forth herein discloses the following:
wherein the time associated with the derivative is one of an expiration date, a start time for a lower knockout price, an end time for the lower knockout price, a start time for an upper knockout price, or an end time for the upper knockout price. (See Foley paras 7, 32-34, 37, 41, Figs. 4A-B, 5, 9)
Regarding Claims 7 and 25, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 21 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
further comprising:
receiving user input indicating a type of derivative, wherein retrieving the precalculated values comprises retrieving precalculated price data for the type of derivative from a datastore, wherein the information-dense user interface further comprises an initial price for the derivative determined from the precalculated price data. (See Foley paras 2, 4-7, 11, 34-38, 47, 49-50, 52-54, 63, Figs. 6, 8)
Regarding Claims 8 and 26, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 7 and 25 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
wherein determining the updated price for the derivative comprises interpolating the updated price from the precalculated price data. (See Foley paras 2, 46, Fig. 2)
Regarding Claims 9 and 27, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 21 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
further comprising placing one or more orders to implement the derivative. (See Foley paras 2, 40, 43, 46, 49, 53, and Figs. 5-7, 10)
Regarding Claims 10 and 28, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 21 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
further comprising receiving an indication that a user has selected a lock control in the information-dense user interface that locks a value of a locked parameter of the additional parameters, wherein determining the updated values of one or more additional parameters of the derivative comprises calculating updated values for other ones of the additional parameters without changing the value of the locked parameter. (See Foley paras 49, 51-52, Figs. 6, 8-9 – trade price at inception is a fixed parameter, however the additional parameters of likelihood of breakeven, likelihood of target, dates to expiry and trade price will be updated)
Regarding Claims 11 and 29, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 10 and 28 and as to those limitations are rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
wherein the locked parameter is a cost to obtain the derivative. (See Foley paras 49, 51-52, Figs. 6, 8-9 – cost to obtain; trade price at inception is a fixed parameter)
Regarding Claim 24, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 21 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
receiving, from the client device, additional data describing additional user input moving a second visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a second parameter of the parameters from a second initial position to a second updated position, the second initial position indicative of a default value of the second parameter and the updated position indicative of an updated value of the second parameter, wherein:
wherein the comprises moving the vertical line from a first x-coordinate corresponding to a first time to a second x-coordinate corresponding to a second time, and determining the updated contours further uses the updated value of the second parameter. (See Foley paras 2, 7, 32-37, 40-41, 53, Figs. 4A-C, 5, 7-9)
Foley discloses the claimed invention except for directly reciting an overlay or underlay comprising contours in the parameter-definition portion, though does describe an executed trade visualization added to the graphical user interface. Foley further discloses data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representation that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position indicative of an updated value of the first parameter where the visualization tool further presents a graph or chart illustrating the selected stocks’ past performance and current prices as indicated with a solid dot or maneuverable click-and-drop pin and a vertical line separating the graphical illustration of past performance from the bullish and bearish expected move consensus representations. (See Foley para 33) Once the values for the expected move are calculated and visually rendered on visualization tool, a user can interact with the visualization tool using a selection tool, e.g., a mouse indicator or a touch and generate a price target selection and the visualization tool will generate a price target selection that corresponds to the bullish expected move consensus. (See Foley para 34) In another embodiment, a user can select a price target directly. (See Foley para 34) In another embodiment, a user is able to click, using a selection tool, and drag the current price pin to any point along the date axis and release or drop the set price target. (See Foley para 35) The probability of outcome dynamically updates at every future price point and is made available to a user. (See Foley para 35)
Applicant’s specification indicates, that as an example, payout contours may be overlaid on the parameter-definition portion representing multiples of premium over time and that contours could indicate relative return on investment corresponding to a profit, break-even, and/or loss. (See Applicant Spec paras 68-69)
Foley shows that executed trade visualization may further include trade summary information may also include comparison data for various parameters concerning the executed trade at the time created including taking profits, cutting losses and likelihood of breakeven on the same graphical user interface used to construct the trade. (See Foley paras 41-42 and Figs. 4A-C, 5, 7-9)
Executed trade visualization added to the same graphical user interface is an equivalent structure to an overlay as known in the art. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute an overlay comprising contours for an executed trade visualization as taught by Foley.
While Foley discloses data describing user input moving a first visual representation as described above it does not fully disclose directly moving the first visual representation by moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price. While the claim limitations do not clearly indicate actively moving the first visual representation and the receiving step is as to data describing user input, for purposes of compact prosecution Examiner is nonetheless citing additional prior art to disclose that the first visual representation comprises horizontal line and moving the first visual representation comprises moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price. Further, while Foley does indicate user input and additional user input moving visual representations, Klock discloses more clearly moving the visual representations to subsequent second updated positions with updated values.
Klock discloses various data processing systems, user interfaces, application programming interfaces, and related operations for commodity financial data processing scenarios. (See Klock Abstract) In some implementations, a system may provide a graphical user interface (GUI) to customize a financial strategy associated with a commodity delivery contract. (See Klock Abstract) The GUI may include an interactive graph representation having a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, with the vertical axis corresponding to price values and the horizontal axis corresponding to time values of the financial strategy. (See Klock Abstract) The interactive graph representation may provide a vertical user interface control which is capable of horizontal movement to select a time value, and a horizontal user interface control which is capable of vertical movement to select a price value of the financial strategy. (See Klock Abstract)
The user interface functionality discussed herein also may invoke automated approaches to simultaneously display, overlay, and combine information from these separate systems into new visual representations where such visual representations can be interacted with (e.g., selected, modified, adjusted, activated, etc.) by a user, to either create a new commodity contract with a new pricing strategy, or to link an existing commodity contract to a new pricing strategy. (See Klock para 18)
FIGS. 7A to 7F illustrate an example progression of user interface functionality within a user interface 700 (and its accompanying views 700A-700F), used for establishing an advanced pricing strategy for an existing commodity contract. (See Klock para 57 and Figs. 7A-F) It will be understood that is graphical user interface usable with the present approaches may include less, more or different functionality, and that the user interface 700 (and the other user interface examples which are illustrated among FIGS. 8A to 10G) are provided only for purposes of example and illustration. (See Klock para 57)
FIG. 7A begins with an illustration of a user interface view and within this view, a new pricing solution is selected within a user interface screen which includes functionality to selected and indicate contract details. (See Klock para 58) The user interface screen 711 further includes a selection option 715 (e.g., button or other user interface control) to proceed with configuration of the pricing solution. (See Klock para 58)
FIG. 7B continues with an illustration of a user interface view and within this view, a configuration screen for the pricing solution is provided within a user interface screen. (See Klock para 59) The screen also includes an interactive graph representation 730, which can be manipulated and changed by a user. (See Klock para 60) In the shown example, the interactive graph representation has a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, with the vertical axis corresponding to time values and the horizontal axis corresponds to price values. (See Klock para 60 – interactive graph representation has a vertical and horizontal axis, vertical corresponding to time values and the horizontal axis corresponding to price values) Within the graph representation, two vertical user interface controls provided by lines 731, 732 (lines perpendicular to the vertical axis) are used to select a time range (e.g., a date range for the pricing strategy quote). (See Klock para 60)
FIG. 7C continues with an illustration of a user interface for further configuring of the pricing solution first established in view 700B and within this view, the pricing information values have been established to different price values. (See Klock para 61) Each of these price values are also displayed with corresponding vertical interface user controls. (See Klock para 61) The interactive graph representation allows movement of the vertical and horizontal user interface controls among respective positions correspond to different time and price values, respectively (e.g., such as by the user interaction which drags the line to another location on the graph). (See Klock para 61, Fig. 7C – interactive graph representation allows movement of the vertical and horizontal user interface controls to different time and price values, such as by the user dragging the line to another location on the graph [moving the horizontal line from a first y-coordinate corresponding to a first value of the price to a second y-coordinate corresponding to a second value of the price])
FIG. 7D continues with an illustration of a user interface view 700D, which represents the result of generating a quote of the pricing strategy at the time value and the price value (e.g., corresponding to respective positions of the vertical user interface control lines) (See Klock para 62) FIG. 7F continues with an illustration of another user interface view 700F, which provides a user interface screen 761 with additional views of customer information associated with one or more pricing strategies. (See Klock para 64)
FIG. 8A-8G illustrate a progression of user interface functionality used for establishing an advanced pricing strategy for a new commodity contract and the user interface screen also includes an interactive graph representation, providing similar functionality as the interactive graph representation 730. (See Klock paras 65-66) The user interface screen also includes an interactive graph representation, providing similar functionality as the interactive graph representation 730. (See Klock para 66) Thus, a vertical user interface control providing by line 832 can be moved to select different time values (option contract expiration dates) associated with the options contract, and a horizontal user interface control provided by line 831 can be used to specify a different price for the option product details. (See Klock para 66 – vertical user interface control line can be moved to select different time values; horizontal user interface control line can be moved to specify a different price [moving vertical lines to selecting different time values; horizontal user interface control lines can be moved from a first value to a second price])
FIG. 8C continues with a similar user interface specifying a different pricing strategy based on another futures option contract type with multiple prices are specified with horizontal user interface controls provided by lines 833 and 834; the relevant time value associated with the options contract is specified with a vertical user interface control provided by line 835. (See Klock para 67 and FIG. 8C)
The various interactive graph representations 730, 830, 930, 1030, and 1070 were described above with reference to a “vertical axis” and a “horizontal axis”, such as where the vertical axis corresponds to price values and the horizontal axis corresponds to time values but it be understood that such labels and designations are merely illustrative. (See Klock para 83) Further, the designations of the terms “horizontal” and “vertical” for the lines represented among the interactive graph representations 730, 830, 930, 1030, 1070 may be equally described by the terms “first”, “second”, “third”, “fourth”, and so forth and other moveable user interface controls and interactive components may also be used in combination or in substitution of the described lines. (See Klock para 84 – moveable user controls among the interactive graph representations can correspond to first, second, etc. values for the lines represented – second updated position is updated and contours are updated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the systems and methods that utilize a dynamic, interactive, real-time expected move chart as a graphical user interface for user price target and other inputs as disclosed by Foley with the systems and user interfaces for commodity financial data processing that include an interactive graph representation having a vertical and horizontal axis that are capable of movement by user interaction dragging the line(s) to another location of the graph as taught by Klock in order to provide additional ways for a user to display, overlay and combine information into new visual representations.
Relevant Prior Art Made of Record Not Currently Being Applied
Mclaren (US PG Pub. 2017/0308954) (“Mclaren”) – Mclaren discloses his invention as to a system for generating an interactive options trading graphical user interface. (See Mclaren Abstract) The graphical user interface comprises an asset price graph having an asset price axis and a time axis showing an asset price characteristic over time, the asset price graph dynamically generated using historical financial information data; and an options payoff diagram displayed adjacent to the asset price graph, wherein the options payoff diagram has: an asset price axis parallel and aligned with the asset price axis of the asset price graph; a profitability outcome axis parallel to the time axis of the asset price graph; and a date/breakeven line aligned with the expiry date on the time axis of the asset price graph. (See Mclaren Abstract)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 31, 2026 have been fully considered as further detailed below.
Regarding the Claim Interpretation Section:
Based on Applicant’s amendments and arguments, this section has been revisited as seen in the rejection in chief. (See Applicant’s Arguments dated 08/31/2026, page 13)
Regarding the 101 Rejections:
The rejection has been updated to reflect the amendments made, as seen in the rejection in chief.
Applicant disagrees that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Id. at page 13) Applicant continues, arguing under Step 2A, Prong One that the examiner has improperly abstracted away from the specific technical operations recited by characterizing the claims as displaying data for derivative pricing positions. (Id.) Applicant argues that Claim 1 does not merely display data, it recites, among other things, receiving data describing user input moving a horizontal line representing a price from a first y-coordinate to a second y-coordinate to a second value of the price; retrieving precalculated values of one or more additional parameters for the updated value of the price using the precalculated values; determining updated contours using the updated value of the price and the updated values of the one or more parameters and causing display of an updated information dense user interface that includes the updated values of the one or more additional parameters and the updated contours updating the interface to include the updated values and contours. (Id. at pages 13-14) Examiner has updated the rejection to reflect displaying, receiving and updating data for derivative pricing positions.
Applicant then argues that the steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind and that the grouping of mental processes should not be expanded to encompass limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. (Id. at page 14) Examiner did not assert a mental process grouping in the rejection, rendering this argument moot.
Applicant then argues that if the claims recite an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede) the ordered combination integrates it into a practical application. (Id.) Applicant argues that the specification describes a concrete technical problem: prior systems distributed derivative information across multiple spreadsheets, making them unusable on small-screen devices and prone to human error citing to their paragraphs 2-3 of the specification and that the claimed solution is a specific technical architecture that enables calculation of prices and thus updating of displayed contours, in near-real time, citing to their specification paragraph 32. (Id. at page 14) Applicant alleges that the specific ordered combination of precalculation, interpolation and contour updating triggered by interactive visual manipulation provides a concrete improvement to the functioning of the user interface itself. (Id.) Applicant continues, arguing that the Prong Two analysis in the Office Action dismisses all elements individually as generic without engaging with the ordered combination. (Id.)
Examiner disagrees. The analysis encompassed the elements individually and in ordered combination. Applicant then takes issue with Examiner’s previously presented response and points to Core Wireless alleging that a combination of user interface elements that provide increased efficiency in accessing data on a small screen is subject matter eligible. (Id. at page 15) This is an overexpansion of Core Wireless which turned on its own facts and specification and had features that were found to improve the efficiency by allowing a user to see the most relevant data or function without actually opening the application up which saved navigation time and was an improvement. This is not the same as what Applicant is alleging in the instant application.
Applicant then takes issue with Examiner noting that there is no discussion of optimization in the specification, nor any assertion that the precalculation and interpolation is inventing something that would not feasible using prior art approaches. (Id. at pages 15-16) Applicant alleges that the improvement does not need to be explicitly stated in the specification but needs to be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art and that the disclosure of the specification of enabling a much larger amount of information to be displayed in a small amount of screen real estate in an intuitive manner and that small screens were previously a problem is sufficient. (Id. at page 16) Applicant then argues that the retrieval of precalculated values for expected parameter values, interpolating updated values for the actual user selected value using the precalculated values and determining updated contours are all triggered by user input moving a horizontal line from one position to another in the user interface was well-understood, routine or conventional at the time of filing. (Id.)
Examiner disagrees. First, as noted above, the receiving is of data describing the user input, not actively a dragging or movement of the horizontal line. Two, the retrieval of data based on a user’s updated values is still retrieving data and the updating of the contours reflects the recalculation based on the revised parameters. Third, the basis in the rejection has been mere instructions to apply the exception. Fourth, the updated parameters are only presented once a user has moved a first visual representation from an initial position to an updated position. This is no more than a user requesting additional input based on the user’s actions. Fifth, the retrieval of precalculated values, applying those values to the updated user provided values and calculating an updated contour are the same steps that would occur conventionally when attempting to hedge one’s investments – however here it is being performed by a computer, that, as noted in the rejection in chief, is recited at a high level of generality. This is still presenting data. The 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the previous rejection is moot in view of the amendments made to the claims. (See Applicant’s Arguments dated 08/31/2026, page 17) Applicant disagrees that the previous rejection of claim 1 was proper, however has incorporated elements of claim 3 into the independent claims. (Id.)
Applicant argues that Foley’s interaction centers on a maneuverable click and drop pin that a user drags to any point along the date axis and releases or drops to set a price target and that the horizontal lines of Foley are static overlays rendered after trade execution, not interactive parameter definition controls that a user moves between y-coordinates as claimed. (Id.)
Applicant then argues that none of the cited paragraphs describe a horizontal line element that a user drags vertically to set a price value and points to their specification for the description and that the rejection should be withdrawn. (Id. at pages 17-18)
Examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite a user dragging a horizontal line element and Applicant is attempting to read the specification into the claims, which is improper. The claims recite “data describing user input moving a first visual representation of the visual representations that corresponds to a first parameter of the parameters from an initial position to an updated position…” in the active portion of the receiving step, which is still data regarding the user input and the manner of moving is not specified, thus Foley sufficiently discloses the step. The addition of the limitations of claim 3 are presented in a wherein clause that attempts to add the moving of the horizontal line without actively claiming the step and would still be subject to the receiving part of the claim which is data describing the user input, not the user input or manner of the user input itself.
However, for purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner has added a second reference to the prior art rejection to address the concern raised, as seen in the rejection in chief. The 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBREEN A. ALLADIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 at 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.
/AMBREEN A. ALLADIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 September 28, 2026
