DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated January 29, 2026.
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 21-25, and 29 have been amended.
3. Claims 1-11 and 21-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
4. Claims 12-20 have been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
5. 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
6. 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).
The preamble of the instant claim 21 recites "[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for defining parameters of a derivative in an information-dense user interface, the instructions, when executed, causing a computing system including one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:” In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or an intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation given patentable weight. Rowe v. Dror, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Catalina Marketing International Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2111.02
In the instant case, “for defining parameters of a derivative in an information-dense user interface” as recited in the preamble only states a purpose and/or the intended use of the invention and accordingly is not being assigned any patentable weight.
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:
providing, by a server, for display at a client device, the information-dense user interface, 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, the visual representations positioned to indicate default values for the parameters of the derivative, 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;
As in Claim 21:
providing, by the computing system, for display at a client device, the information-dense user interface, 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, the visual representations positioned to indicate default values for the parameters of the derivative, 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;
As in Claim 5:
wherein the first visual representation comprises a vertical line and the first parameter is a time associated with the derivative, and 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.
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 23:
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, and wherein the price associated with the derivative is one of a put price, a spot price, and upper knock out price, a lower knock out price, or a strike price.
As in Claim 24:
wherein the first visual representation comprises a vertical line and the first parameter is a time associated with the derivative, and 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 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.
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.
7. Claims 1-11 and 21-29 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. Currently, claims 21-29 are also subject to separate rejections as being non-statutory (as shown below), however Examiner assumes that Applicant will rectify the claims to properly claim the invention as within statutory categories, and will accordingly continue the Alice analysis.
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 data for derivative pricing positions. The idea is described by the following limitations:
providing for display 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, the visual representations positioned to indicate default values for the parameters of the derivative, 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;
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
updating to include 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 data for derivative pricing positions. The idea is described by the following limitations:
providing for display 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, the visual representations positioned to indicate default values for the parameters of the derivative, 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;
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
updating to include 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, 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 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 and 21 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 and 21 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 2-11 and 22-29 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent Claims 1 and 21 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity 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. 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 1-11 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because, in order to comply with §101, a computer program product claim must recite that the computer program product comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions (or code) embodied thereon and said instructions are configured to control a computer to perform specific functional steps. The claim must then recite the specific functional steps performed by execution of the instructions contained on the computer-readable medium by the computer, rather than reciting the code or software itself (i.e. software per se is not patentable). A computer program product, when properly claimed, describes the method steps performed when executed by a computer system, not the code or software itself.
The preamble for a computer program product has to state that (1) the product is stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (which is present), (2) the product can be executed on a computer (which is not clearly present) and (3) when executed the product causes the computer to perform a method (which is not clearly present) where the further claim limitations are written as method steps. It is the actual the method being performed by the computer which is patentable, rather than the software itself.
Claim 21 recites that “[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for defining parameters of a derivative in an information-dense user interface, the instructions, when executed, causing a computing system including one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:”. In the manner currently constructed, there is a lack of specificity as to what the instructions are actually accomplishing. The instructions are for the intended use identified as “for defining parameters of a derivative in an information-dense user interface” – thus the instructions are to define parameters of a derivative, however not necessarily to produce the user interface or to effectuate the steps that are recited after the preamble. Additionally, while there is invocation of a computing system, the recitation is “causing a computing system…” to perform operations. As recited, this may not simply be when executed performing the steps recited, but may be causing the computer system to then perform other steps with the one or more computing devices that then may perform steps. Dependent Claims 22-29 are further rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
8. Claim(s) 1-11 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0056629) (“Foley”)
Regarding Claim 1, Foley discloses the following:
A method of defining parameters of a derivative in an information-dense user interface, the method comprising:
providing, by a server, for display at a client device, the information-dense user interface, 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, the visual representations positioned to indicate default values for the parameters of the derivative, 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, 62, 66-67, 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; (See Foley paras 34-36, 53, 56, 59-60, 62, 66-67,Figs. 4A-B – 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)
updating, by the server, the information-dense user interface to include the updated values of the one or more additional parameters for the derivative and the updated contours. (See Foley paras 34-37, 53-54, Figs. 4A-B, 5, 7)
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.
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.
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. Further, Foley discloses the following:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for defining parameters of a derivative in an information-dense user interface, the instructions, when executed, causing a computing system including one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising: (See Foley paras 53-55, 65-66, 69-72, 78-79)
Regarding Claims 2 and 22, these substantially similar claims recite the limitations of Claims 1 and 21 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
wherein the price parameter is a put price of the derivative. (See Foley paras 2, 32, 34, 40, Figs. 4A-B, 5-7)
Regarding Claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
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, Figs. 3, 4C, 7-8)
Regarding Claim 4, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 3 and as to those limitations is 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 Claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley discloses the following:
wherein the first visual representation comprises a vertical line and the first parameter is a time associated with the derivative, and 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. (See Foley paras 2, 34-36, 40-41, 53, Figs. 4C, 7-8)
Regarding Claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 5 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, Foley 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 23, 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:
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, and wherein the price associated with the derivative is one of a put price, a spot price, and upper knock out price, a lower knock out price, or a strike price. (See Foley paras 2, 6-7, 32-36, 40-41, 50-51, 53, Figs. 3, 4C, 7-8)
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:
wherein the first visual representation comprises a vertical line and the first parameter is a time associated with the derivative, and 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 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 2, 7, 32-37, 40-41, 53, Figs. 4A-C, 5, 7-9)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered as further detailed below.
Regarding the 112(b) Rejections:
While Applicant disagrees with the Office Action’s assertions, they have amended the claims to address the issues presented. (See Applicant’s Arguments dated 01/29/2026, page 1) As such, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Interpretation Section:
Based on Applicant’s amendments and arguments, this section has been revisited as seen in the rejection in chief. (Id. at pages 1-4)
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 4) Applicant argues that conventional user interfaces for representing derivatives distributed relevant information across multiple locations and were ill suited to use on devise [sic] with small screens such as smartphones or tablets, citing to their paragraphs 2-3 of the specification. (Id. at page 5) The specification indicates that the information-dense user interface “may present a large amount of information on a single (potentially) small screen simultaneously, enabling the user to quickly and intuitively understand the context of a derivative and the potential impact of parameter changes on the derivative”. (See Applicant Spec para 4)
Applicant further points to paragraphs 82-84 for the proposition that the use of movable parameter indicators with precalculated and interpolated values further optimizes the user interface for use with small-screen devices. (See Applicant’s Arguments dated 01/29/2026, page 5) The specification as cited does not discuss optimizing the interface for use with small screens, nor does the specification refer to optimization in any context. Applicant then argues that the use of precalculation and interpolation enables rapid iteration of parameter configurations for a derivative that would not be feasible using prior art approaches. (Id. at page 5) Applicant concludes that the user interface is particularly configured to address problems with prior user interfaces that were not suited to use with small-screen devices and that the invention is to a technical field, not the underlying business or mental process. (Id.)
Examiner disagrees. 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. Further, the specification relays the improvement as to enabling a larger amount of information to be displayed in a small amount of screen real estate, however this is a convenience problem (not having to scroll) that is solved by presenting information in layers. This is still presenting data. 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. This is not an improvement to the technology of user interfaces, it is providing more data and presenting a manner to recalculate data based on a user’s input. These arguments are not persuasive. The 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 103 Rejections:
Applicant asserts that the previous rejections are moot in view of the amendments made. (Id. at page 5) Applicant further does not concede that Foley teaches the limitations of the previous claims, however has amended Claim 1 to broadly claim that each contour indicates 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 and refers to Figs 6A-C of the application as filed. (Id. at page 6) Applicant continues, arguing that Foley merely discloses displaying a pair of lines that represent a projected price at which an asset may be sold in bullish and bearish markets. (Id. at pages 6-7)
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s conclusions. Examiner has added additional disclosure from the prior art to meet the limitations as now presented. Further, Foley does show the limitations as claimed and does show more than just a pair of lines as disclosed in the cited figures in the rejection in chief and associated paragraphs, Figure 2 is only one of the figures that were cited. This argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights