Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed 17 July 2023. Claim 1 has been canceled. Claims 2-21 are pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of U.S. Patent No. 7801784 B2, claims 1-54 of U.S. Patent No. 7890396 B2, claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 8131618 B2 and claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 8615456 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The current invention and US Patents ‘784, ‘396, ‘618, and ‘456 are drawn to methods and corresponding systems for managing financial market information. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations from the present application and US Patents ‘784, ‘396, ‘618, and ‘456 above are significantly similar and the claimed features seem to be identical with various obvious alternate method of initiating the auction.
Claims 2-21 essentially repeats all the features listed in the claims of 784, ‘396, ‘618, and ‘456. The instant claims 2-21 do not include all the limitations of claims 1-39 of ‘784, claims 1-54 of ‘396, claims 1-28 of ‘618 and claims 1-32 of ‘456. The omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
For these reasons, claims 2-21 of the instant application are not identical to claims 1-39 of U.S. Patent No. 7801784 B2, claims 1-54 of U.S. Patent No. 7890396 B2, claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 8131618 B2 and claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 8615456 B2, but they are not patently distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 2 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for managing financial market information on a display.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Independent method claims 2, similarly system claim 11 and non-transitory computer readable medium claim 20 recite the limitations of graphically depicting a view of market conditions in a plurality of dimensions including (a) completed market activity presented as a three-dimensional object having one or more steps, each step representing a different financial instrument and having a first and a second sections selected from one of vertical and horizontal representations, and (b) current market conditions of at least two objects in a plurality of dimensions, having one or more slabs, each slab representing the financial instruments corresponding to the one or more steps and having plurality of vertical stacks representing a volume of security orders at a given price; and executing a transaction associated with a first of the plurality of vertical stacks by selecting the first vertical stack, wherein each of the plurality of vertical stacks is a limit order book for the respective financial instrument.
The claimed system simply describes series of steps for managing financial market information. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performances and concepts relating to fundamental economic principles or practices that enhance customer experience with managing a financial account (see Priceplay.com, Inc. v. AOL Advert., Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 577, 580 (D. Del. 2015), aff'd, 627 F. App’x 925 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Rule 36)), and, therefore, fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity category of the USPTO’s Guidance. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14. A method of organizing human activity which includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are managing transactions and/or activities that fall within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, independent claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of a processor and a memory to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (¶¶ 0046-0047 and 0055). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Merely adding generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application). Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a server (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the server at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 2, 11 and 20. Furthermore, dependent claims 3-10, 12-19 and 21 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3-10, 12-19 and 21 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Dependent claims, recite additional limitations and steps. However, as mentioned above with respect to the independent claims, the claimed limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a device, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic device to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 2-21 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Damschroder (US 20030088492 A1) discloses a computer-implemented method and device for creating a holistic representation of a portfolio. The model graphs diversification and explains diversification as symmetry. The model can facilitate active management of a portfolio, communication of complicated investment concepts and lucid, holistic portfolio representation. The model, normally depicted in three dimensions may provide a platform to perform portfolio analysis and manage investments.
Segal et al. (US 20020133449 A1) discloses “An interactive decision support system for monitoring and responding to system and market events displayed within a two-dimensional view of a three-dimensional system model”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 on (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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691