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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive. In consideration of the applicant’s arguments the examiner has modified the rejection from certain methods of organizing human activity to mathematical concepts as shown below.
Applicant argues the payment system represents a technological solution to inaccurate pricing for income producing securities.
The Office asserts that the applicant recites advantages over the prior art as described in the specification however, the claims do not reflect the improvements asserted. Specifically, the claims do not reflect any change or improvement in securities pricing but recite the calculation of distribution amounts to members based on the ownership of a security and a digital token used to track the ownership of the security. The claims do not recite the price of the security or how it may be calculated therefore, the arguments presented do no align with the claim limitations and the argument is moot.
The 112 rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are presented based on an updated review of the claims in light of the claim amendments.
The claim interpretation is modified.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
A payment system for improving security pricing using digital tokens in a closed
loop, comprising:
a closed loop comprising a member, wherein the member comprises one or more of an investor and an intermediary appointed by the investor to act on the investor's behalf;
a server operably connected to the closed loop, the server configured to do one or more of control the system and process ownership data regarding ownership of a security by the member;
a distribution administrator computer system operably connected to the server, the distribution administrator computer system configured to receive from the member the ownership data, the distribution administrator computer system further configured to create a digital token to track ownership of the security by the member during a payment period, thereby generating updated ownership data, the distribution administrator computer system further configured to send the updated ownership data to the server, the distribution administrator computer system further configured to credit the digital token to an account of the member; and
a security holder operably connected to the distribution administrator computer system, the security holder configured to hold the security, the security holder further configured to receive a total distribution on behalf of a member of the closed loop, the security holder further configured to send the total distribution to the distribution administrator computer system,
wherein the server is further configured to receive the updated ownership data from the distribution administrator computer system, wherein the server is further configured to compute, using the updated ownership data, a distribution amount to be paid to a member of the closed loop, wherein the server is further configured to send the distribution amount to the distribution administrator computer system, wherein the distribution administrator computer system is configured, using the distribution amount, to pay the member the distribution amount.
Claim 1 represents mathematical concepts, mathematical calculations because the claim recites computing a distribution amount. As a whole the claim recites receiving member ownership data of a security, tracking ownership data, updating and sending ownership data and crediting an account of the member. A security holder to hold the security, receive a distribution amount on behalf of the member and send the distribution amount to an administrator. Receive the updated ownership data, compute a distribution amount to be paid the member, send the distribution amount to an administrator, and pay the member the distribution amount.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is merely implemented by a computer system, comprised of a distribution administrator computer system, a server, and a digital token. These elements recite the performance of basic functions such as sending, receiving and tracking data and computing the distribution amount but do not describe performing these functions in any particular way (i.e., generically), therefore the abstract idea I supplemented by the words “apply it” or the like.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons stated above.
Claim 30 is similarly rejected.
42. A method for improving security pricing using digital tokens in a closed loop, comprising:
using a system comprising a closed loop comprising a member, wherein the member comprises one or more of an investor and an intermediary appointed by the investor to act on the investor's behalf;
a server operably connected to the closed loop, the server configured to do one or more of control the system and process ownership data regarding ownership of a security by the member, a distribution administrator computer system operably connected to the server, the distribution administrator computer system configured to receive from the member the ownership data, the distribution administrator computer system further configured to create a digital token to track ownership of the security by the member during a payment period, thereby generating updated ownership data, the distribution administrator computer system further configured to send the updated ownership data to the server, the distribution administrator computer system further configured to credit the digital token to an account of the member; and
a security holder operably connected to the distribution administrator computer system, the security holder configured to hold the security, the security holder further configured to receive a total distribution on behalf of the member of the closed loop, the security holder further configured to send the total distribution to the distribution administrator computer system, wherein the server is further configured to receive the updated ownership data from the distribution administrator computer system, wherein the server is further configured to compute, using the updated ownership data, a distribution amount to be paid to the member of the closed loop, wherein the server is further configured to send the distribution amount to the distribution administrator computer system, wherein the distribution administrator computer system is configured, using the distribution amount, to pay the member the distribution amount, receiving, from the member, the ownership data;
creating a digital token to track ownership of the security by the members during the payment period;
tracking ownership of the security by the member during the payment period, generating updated ownership data;
receiving a total distribution on behalf of the member;
calculating an ownership credit earned by each member of the closed loop based on each digital token owned by the respective member for a unit of time;
computing, using the updated ownership data, all distribution amounts due to all members of the closed loop, wherein the computing step further comprises computing the distribution amount to be paid to the member using an equation:
(2)Distribution Amount = (TD/TOC) * Ownership Credits, where TD = equals a total distribution for a security that is held by the security holder, where TOC = a total number of ownership credits that were generated by the digital token in the payment period, and where Ownership Credits represents a number of ownership credits earned in the payment period by the member of the closed loop;
sending the computed distribution amounts to all the members; and
using the distribution amount, paying the member the distribution amounts.
Claim 43 is similar to claim 42.
Claims 42 and 43 represent mathematical concepts including a mathematical formulas or equations since the claim recites the use a particular equation for calculating the distribution amount.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are similar to claims 1 and 30 but also add the equation used to calculate the distribution amount but use additional elements amounting to adding the words “apply it”, or the like as noted above in the rejection of claims 1 and 30.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, 16, 18-26, 28, and 29 merely narrow the abstract idea because they comprise actions which can be included in the abstract idea and implemented by the additional elements. Claims 8, 12, 13, 17 and 27 recite additional elements of the system, performing basic functions, such as sending and receiving or storing that amount to adding the words “apply it” as discussed previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 30 and 42 and their dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 30 and 42 recites creating a digital token, tracking ownership and receiving a total distribution in two separate portions of the claim rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear if these actions are performed twice or if the limitations were included inadvertently.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 recites similar limitations involving generating the digital token as claim as claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 recites similar limitations involving tracking real-time positions as claim as claim 19. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a security holder in claims 1, 30, 42 and 43.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694