DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/197,675 entitled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PUSHING RECOMMENDED FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS TO A CLIENT DEVICE" filed on October 20, 2025, with claims 1, 2, and 15-17 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 2 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 3-14 are cancelled.
Claims 15-17 are added and have been examined.
Claims 1, 2, and 15-17 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 20, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 15-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 20, 2025.
Examiner’s Note
Intended use language is generally given limited patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” “thereby,” and “for.” The following limitations are interpreted as intended use limitations:
Claim 1: “thereby generating a tamper-evident record linking client approval to a specific trade order and associated due diligence”
The Examiner determines the aforementioned intended use statement does not result in any structural nor manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Therefore, the intended use statements are afforded limited patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description in the original disclosure of the claim limitation “normalized order parameters” in Claims 1 and 17 of the application as filed.
Paragraph [0034] speaks about “a standardized file format to present documents” though it does not seemingly pertain to order parameters.
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description in the original disclosure of the claim limitation “hash” in Claim 1 of the application as filed.
The Specification discusses encryption; however, it never discusses hashing.
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description in the original disclosure of the claim limitation “in an append-only audit log....thereby generating a tamper-evident record linking client approval to a specific trade order” in Claim 1 of the application as filed.
The closest reference comes from Paragraph [0037] “the method 200 may include storing, by the broker application, the client response in a storage location (e.g., a local data store and/or the files 142 on the data store 120) and restricting modification to the stored client response. In other words, stored client responses are immutable, which supports the broker's fiduciary duty to the client.”
However, this language is broader than “an append-only audit log.”
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description in the original disclosure of the claim limitation “generating an execution authorization token as a cryptographic hash … the execution authorization token having a validity interval” “the execution authorization token” in Claim 1 of the application as filed.
The Specification makes no mention of “authorization token” nor “token”
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description in the original disclosure of the claim limitation “an approval message that comprises a cryptographic digital signature bound to the client device that cryptographically binds the approval message…” in Claim 1 of the application as filed.
The Specification [0027]-[0029] describe the client device receiving a trade order, authenticating the client via compared biometric data or authentication factors in order to allow the client device to display the received trade order. [0035-0036] states more broadly than the claims “confirm button 310 may cause the application 121 to generate a message containing the order for the broker to purchase the identified securities, populate the message with data from the order, and/or apply client identification data and/or data encryption to provide an assurance that the authorized client is making the order to purchase the... At 210, the method 200 may include encrypting, by the client application, the reviewed trade order to generate a second encrypted trade order and sending, by the client application, the second encrypted trade order to the broker application.” However, there is no support for the more specific limitations of “an approval message that comprises a cryptographic digital signature bound to the client device that cryptographically binds the approval message…”
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description in the original disclosure of the claim limitation “verifying, by the broker server, the cryptographic digital signature” in Claim 1 of the application as filed.
The Specification makes no mention of “digital signature”.
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description in the original disclosure of the claim limitation “in response to the verification, evaluating, by a compliance rule engine of the broker server, the due-diligence data against a set of machine-enforceable compliance rules, and upon satisfying the rules…” in Claim 1 of the application as filed.
The Specification makes no mention of compliance rule engine.
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description in the original disclosure of the claim limitation “the execution authorization token having a validity interval” in Claim 1 of the application as filed.
The Specification [0026] describes the transaction time period reflecting a time frame the trade order is executable within as information for a client to review, and [0033-0034] describe the recommended trade information displayed to the client includes the expiration date and time for the order and current market information including the price and index value changes during one or more time periods.” However, these time intervals are not associated with the execution authorization token.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). The term "normalized” in Claims 1 and 17 lack boundaries of the protected subject matter and are not clearly delineated. Therefore, the scope is unclear which renders the claim indefinite. The term "normalized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term "normalized” may possess a descriptive meaning that depends solely on the subjective opinion of the person using the claimed invention.
See MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV) Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase "unobtrusive manner" indefinite because the specification did not "provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary").
Therefore the claims are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1, 2, and 15-17 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“a ….method executed by a broker …for pushing recommended financial transactions …the method comprising:
receiving, at a broker … an input associated with a trade recommendation to be reviewed by a client, the input comprising due diligence data associated with the trade recommendation and is associated with a broker-stored network resource identifier that enables retrieval of the due diligence data;
generating, by the broker … using the input, a trade order associated with a particular security and comprising normalized order parameters;
sending, by the broker … the trade order and the broker-stored network resource identifier to a client device for client approval, wherein the trade order is displayed at the client device together with at least a portion of the due diligence data retrieved using the network resource identifier;
receiving, by the broker … an approval message that comprises a ….that ….the approval message to the normalized order parameters and to an identifier of the due-diligence data;
verifying, by the broker …
in response to the verification, evaluating, by a compliance rule engine of the broker … the due-diligence data against a set of ….compliance rules, and upon satisfying the rules, generating an execution authorization token …over at least the normalized order parameters and the identifier of the due diligence data, the execution authorization token having a validity interval;
recording, in an append-only audit log maintained by the broker … a record comprising the approval message, the execution authorization token, and a hash of the normalized order parameters and the identifier of the due-diligence data, thereby generating a tamper-evident record linking client approval to a specific trade order and associated due diligence.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between buyers, sellers, and/or brokers. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “pushing recommended financial transactions”, “generating... a trade order associated with a particular security” and “sending... the trade order” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[computer-implemented] [server] [to a client device][from the client device][machine enforceable]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[cryptographic digital signature bound] [cryptographically bind] [the cryptographic digital signature][as a cryptographic hash]:
generally linking to the judicial exception of cryptography as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0020] the network 110 can be any combination of connections and protocols
[0021] broker device 112, the client device 111, and the server 115 may be a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a mobile computing device, a wearable computing device, netbook computer, a computer cluster, a distributed computing system, a personal computer (PC), a desktop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smart phone, or any programmable electronic device
[0022] control circuit can be any control circuit known in the art
[0044] Computer program code … may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object-oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language or similar programming languages.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“client device”, “server”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“encrypted”: generally linking to the judicial exception of cryptography as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 15: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 16:
“computing system”, “network”, “server”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 17:
“computing system”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is 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)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cummings ("SYSTEM AND METHOD OF PROVIDING AND RECORDING CONTEXT-SPECIFIC ADVICE IN THE FORM OF AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE VIEW OF A HIERARCHICAL PORTFOLIO", U.S. Publication Number: 20210264520 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Cummings teaches,
A computer-implemented method executed by a broker server for pushing recommended financial transactions to a client device, the method comprising: receiving, at a broker server, an input associated with a trade recommendation to be reviewed by a client,
(Cummings [0035] investment brokers
Cummings [0036] Intelligent investment system 102 may contain one or more web servers
Cummings [0014] for processing inputs received from a client device on an application server
Cummings [0005] The investment system may route the AI view, including recommended transactions, for review and approval by a financial advisor or team of financial professionals (e.g., financial review board, or FRB).
Cummings [0006] the investor may select and act upon (e.g., accept, reject, place, etc.) individual AI suggestions and recommended transactions)
the input comprising due diligence data associated with the trade recommendation
(Cummings [0071] portfolio candidate holdings....may be augmented by the enrichment service with additional data attributes and populated with the most current data attribute values ...(e.g., 52-week high, 52-week low, actual EPS, beta, estimated EPS, forward P/E ratio, trailing P/E ratio, market capitalization, maturity date, yield, etc.) or other global financial data (e.g., news, events, sentiment analyses, forecasts, policy statements, economic data, corporate filings, analyst research, etc.).)
and is associated with a broker-stored network resource identifier that enables retrieval of the due diligence data;
(Cummings [0047] AI suggestion identifiers (i.e., unique ID)
Cummings [0199] includes hierarchical portfolio names, identifiers, private keys, blockchain names, and contract addresses) of the financial client the unique hierarchical portfolio identifier shared by prior portfolio
Cummings [0040] intelligent investment system 102 and stored within various data sources ....may include...global financial data, user data,...financial advice. ... news and events, sentiment assessments, market forecasts, monetary and fiscal policy statements, volatility and liquidity measures, interest and inflation rates, ....industry analyst research and reports, microeconomic data and reports, corporate filings and reports)
generating, by the broker server using the input, a trade order associated with a particular security and comprising normalized order parameters;
(Cummings [0041] The application servers 122 of intelligent investment system 102 may host one or more investment application services 124, which provide investment-related functions to users and systems that access intelligent investment system
Cummings [0151] Upon the receipt of each transaction request, asset trading platform 1000 may execute the specific trading instructions
Cummings [0195] investment system 102 may form a transaction containing transaction parameters and a transaction signature.
Cummings [0148] AI suggestions generated by the system for optimizing a hierarchical portfolio are not only subject to user data constraints but also to global financial data conditions, such as economic and market conditions.)
sending, by the broker server, the trade order and the broker-stored network resource identifier to a client device for client approval,
(Cummings [0005] the investment system may transmit the approved AI view to the investor's smart device
Cummings [0047] AI suggestion identifiers (i.e., unique ID)
Cummings [0006] receiving and reviewing the context-specific financial advice ... the investor may select and act upon (e.g., accept, reject, place, etc.) individual AI suggestions and recommended transactions. )
wherein the trade order is displayed at the client device together with at least a portion of the due diligence data retrieved using the network resource identifier;
(Cummings [0048] The portfolio view service 212...assembles an artificial intelligence view (AI view) for overlay upon a hierarchical portfolio ...by combining AI suggestions...enables AI suggestions to be received, viewed, and understood by users
Cummings [0012] an artificial intelligence view (AI view) of a hierarchical portfolio presented on a display of a client device
Cummings [0005] To provide the investor with context-specific financial advice,... Each AI suggestion contained within the AI view may further provide recommended asset transactions (e.g., buy, sell, or transfer orders) for the investor to consider and ultimately place for execution via an electronic trading platform.
Cummings [0011] a hierarchically organized portfolio presented on a display of a client device connected to an intelligent investment system
Cummings [0040] intelligent investment system 102 and stored within various data sources ....may include...global financial data, user data,...financial advice. ... news and events, sentiment assessments, market forecasts, monetary and fiscal policy statements, volatility and liquidity measures, interest and inflation rates, ....industry analyst research and reports, microeconomic data and reports, corporate filings and reports)
receiving, by the broker server from the client device, an approval message that comprises a cryptographic digital signature bound to the client device that cryptographically bind the approval message to the normalized order parameters and to an identifier of the due-diligence data; verifying, by the broker server, the cryptographic digital signature;
(Cummings [0006] investor may select and act upon (e.g., accept, reject, place, etc.) individual AI suggestions and recommended transactions.
Cummings [0192] encryptedKey, viewSignature, signatureAlgorithm
Cummings [0196] generate the digital signature (i.e., _viewSignature) of the hash of AI view 1200 utilizing the private key of the owner of the hierarchical portfolio
Cummings [0219] signed by the private key, owned by the financial client, associated with Portfolio 1
Cummings [0148] AI suggestions generated by the system for optimizing a hierarchical portfolio are not only subject to user data constraints but also to global financial data conditions, such as economic and market conditions.
Cummings [0210] stack operations (e.g., hashing, verifying, signature checking, etc.).
Cummings [0040] intelligent investment system 102 and stored within various data sources ....may include...global financial data, user data,...financial advice. ... news and events, sentiment assessments, market forecasts, monetary and fiscal policy statements, volatility and liquidity measures, interest and inflation rates, ....industry analyst research and reports, microeconomic data and reports, corporate filings and reports)
in response to the verification, evaluating, by a compliance rule engine of the broker server, the due-diligence data against a set of machine enforceable compliance rules, and upon satisfying the rules, generating an execution authorization token as a cryptographic has over at least the normalized order parameters and the identifier of the due diligence data,
(Cummings [0274] rules and policies ...may be required by state, national, or supranational regulators responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with various comprehensive data protection, privacy, and portability laws and regulations
Cummings [0276] delete or erase data about them that is stored by the financial firm (i.e., right c above) may appear to conflict with the ability of an intelligent investment system
Cummings [0269] investment system to provide an access token (e.g., one-time token, temporary token, limited-use token, etc.) ...where the access token enables the trusted financial advisor to instruct the investment system to decrypt specific encrypted elements of the personal financial record on behalf of the financial client who authorized the issuance of the access token
Cummings [0047] AI suggestion identifiers (i.e., unique ID))
the execution authorization token having a validity interval;
(Cummings [0269] provide an access token (e.g., one-time token, temporary token, limited-use token, etc.)
Cummings [0057] Time horizon may include short, medium, or long-term periods)
recording, in an append-only audit log maintained by the broker server, a record comprising the approval message, the execution authorization token, and a hash of the normalized order parameters and the identifier of the due-diligence data, thereby generating a tamper-evident record linking client approval to a specific trade order and associated due diligence
(Cummings [0007] to a blockchain (e.g., private blockchain, public blockchain, hybrid blockchain, etc.), thereby establishing (i.e., newly creating) or maintaining (i.e., appending to) a portable financial record... immutably, and permanently record multiple sequences...provided to, accepted by, and acted upon by the investor.
Cummings [0269] provide an access token
Cummings [Claim 17] recording, by the computer system, the hash of the view on a blockchain
Cummings [0047] AI suggestion identifiers (i.e., unique ID))
Regarding Claim 2,
Cummings teaches the trade recommendation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Cummings teaches,
wherein sending the trade order to the client device for client approval comprises: encrypting, by the broker server, the trade order to form a first encrypted trade order;
(Cummings [0005] The investment system may route the AI view, including recommended transactions, for review and approval by a financial advisor or team of financial professionals (e.g., financial review board, or FRB). Upon approval, the investment system may transmit the approved AI view to the investor's smart device
Cummings [0036] Intelligent investment system 102 may contain one or more web servers
Cummings [0005] Each AI suggestion contained within the AI view may further provide recommended asset transactions (e.g., buy, sell, or transfer orders) for the investor to consider and ultimately place for execution via an electronic trading platform.
Cummings [0006] may fully or partially encrypt the updated AI view.)
and sending, by the broker server, the encrypted trade order to the client device for client approval.
(Cummings [0006] receiving and reviewing the context-specific financial advice ... the investor may select and act upon (e.g., accept, reject, place, etc.) individual AI suggestions and recommended transactions. )
Regarding Claim 16,
Cummings teaches the trade recommendation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Cummings teaches,
inserting the execution authorization token into an electronic order message; and
(Cummings [0269] an AI view of a hierarchical portfolio owned by a financial client... direct the investment system to provide an access token (e.g., one-time token, temporary token, limited-use token, etc.)... in the blockchain)
routing, by an order-routing module of the broker server via a network, the electronic order message to a execution-venue computing system for execution.
(Cummings [0134] intelligent investment system 102 may route the resulting order flow to an electronic trading platform for execution.)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings ("SYSTEM AND METHOD OF PROVIDING AND RECORDING CONTEXT-SPECIFIC ADVICE IN THE FORM OF AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE VIEW OF A HIERARCHICAL PORTFOLIO", U.S. Publication Number: 20210264520 A1), in view of Milner (“TRANSACTION SYSTEM AND METHOD”, WIPO Publication Number: WO 0144968 A2).
Regarding Claim 15,
Cummings teaches the trade recommendation of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Cummings does not teach further comprising the step of rejecting the trade order if the execution authorization token is absent or if the validity interval has expired.
Milner teaches,
further comprising the step of rejecting the trade order if the execution authorization token is absent or if the validity interval has expired.
(Milner [Page 18, Lines 17-19] valid token types may include stocks such as gold, publicly traded shares or any other tradable right
Milner [Page 22, Lines 11-17] This field defines an expiry date and time before which no further transaction can take place using that token. ...If any attempt is made to spend or use the token in any way before the escrow expiry date has been reached, the token register TR will reject the transaction, on checking whether there is an extant escrow period indicated in the "escrow date" field in the record of the relevant token, stored in the token register)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified trade recommendations of Cummings to incorporate the trading token rejections of Milner where “valid token types may include stocks such as gold, publicly traded shares or any other tradable right.” (Milner [Page 18, Lines 17-19]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. trading token rejections) to a known concept (i.e. trade recommendations) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “time before which no further transaction can take place using that token.” Milner [Page 22, Lines 11-17])
Regarding Claim 17,
Cummings and Milner teach the trade recommendation of Claim 16 as described earlier.
Cummings does not teach causing the execution-venue computing system to verify the execution authorization token prior to execution and to reject the electronic order message when the normalized order parameters in the electronic order message do not match those used to compute the execution authorization token.
Milner teaches,
causing the execution-venue computing system to verify the execution authorization token prior to execution
(Milner [Page 22, Lines 11-12] This field defines an expiry date and time before which no further transaction can take place using that token)
and to reject the electronic order message when the normalized order
(Milner [page 22, lines 15-16] the token register TR will reject the transaction)
parameters in the electronic order message do not match those used to compute the execution authorization token.
(Milner [Page 23, Lines 17-18] If no match is found for one or more tokens, the token register sends an explanatory error message)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified trade recommendations of Cummings to incorporate the trading token rejections of Milner where “valid token types may include stocks such as gold, publicly traded shares or any other tradable right.” (Milner [Page 18, Lines 17-19]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. trading token rejections) to a known concept (i.e. trade recommendations) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “time before which no further transaction can take place using that token.” Milner [Page 22, Lines 11-17])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on October 20, 2025, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully requests that the Section 101 rejection be withdrawn, because the claims, as amended, are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem-namely, preventing unauthorized trades via a mechanism that cryptographically binds client approval to a particular, normalized trade message and to a referenced due-diligence record; issues an execution authorization token; and requires the token to be verified before an execution venue computer will consummate the trade. These steps prevent post-approval tampering, eliminate mis-bound approvals, and create a tamper-evident audit trail automatically at computer speed. These claims are analogous to the patent-eligible claims identified in the USPTOSubject-Matter Eligibility Examples directed to Business Methods, including for example, Subject-Matter Eligibility Example No. 35.”
Examiner responds:
Firstly, a number of “new matter” statements exist that seemingly are not mentioned in the Specification. No support is found for the claim language of “normalized order parameters”, “hash”, “in an append-only audit log.”
Secondly, Applicant seemingly refers to cryptography and blockchain immutability. These additional elements would be deemed as “merely applying” such technologies. The focus of the claims is not on an improvement in cryptography and blockchain as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use cryptography and blockchain as tools.
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than “merely applying” off-the-shelf, conventional in cryptography and blockchain technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information. See MPEP 2106.05(d) well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In the absence of unexpected results, changes or alteration of sequence do not make for a patentable invention, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) ; In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)
Finally, Applicant’s invention differs from Example 35 where a specialized device (an ATM) is modified from its “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” to produce a random code and further adapted to decrypt a mobile device’s encrypted image output. The ATM operates in a non‐conventional and non‐generic way to ensure that a customer’s identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. The invention improves upon the hardware of a specialized device, for a public ATM to decrypt the contents of an individual’s personal mobile device to identify a user. Furthermore, the ATM’s subsequent sending of a control signal to provide or prevent access to the keypad of the ATM effects a physical transformation. Applicant’s invention is in no way analogous.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Milner (“TRANSACTION SYSTEM AND METHOD”, WIPO Publication Number: WO 0144968 A2).
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 102 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 102/103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Auerbach ("SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR MODIFYING THE SUPPLY, DEPOSITING, HOLDING AND/OR DISTRIBUTING COLLATERAL AS A STABLE VALUE TOKEN IN THE FORM OF DIGITAL ASSETS", U.S. Patent Number: 11334883 B1) teaches The present invention generally relates to a method, system and program product for depositing, holding and/or distributing collateral in the form of digital assets in a peer-to-peer network.
Mazier (“METHOD AND CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY SECURE PEER-TO-PEER TRADING PLATFORM”, U.S. Publication Number: 20170161829 A1) teaches a secure electronic peer-to-peer bond-trading network for executing trades at mid-market prices and a process for performing the trades in a secure cryptographic manner, where users can submit pricing or show trade orders in a manner such that confidence in the protection of confidential information is enhanced.
Gordon (“BLOCKCHAIN INSTRUMENT FOR TRANSFERABLE EQUITY”, U.S. Patent Number: US 12008649 B1) proposes offering and purchasing tokenized securities on a blockchain platform meeting current and future federal, state, and offering and holding entity rules and regulations. Tokenized securities purchased during or after the tokenized securities offering are tradable on a secondary market. The server computer of the tokenized securities provides an automated transfer capability for tokenized securities holders.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695