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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11776056. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims would anticipate claim 1 of the current application. "Reducing a rate of price cascade" is broadened in the current application but anticipates the limitation "reduce price cascade". The claims are slightly different in wording, but still reducing rate. The patent "one or more configuration parameters automatically control a rate at which the price cascade is electronically slowed down" is equivalent to the currently claimed "adjustable reduction rate" in view of Specification [0052] that describes the configuration parameter Tick reduction rate R is the manually adjustable rate. The claim limitation "that the price cascade has stopped" is describes the result and intended use of the immediately preceding step of disengaging the spike price limit mechanism, but does not limit the scope of the claim.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a system.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of receive one or more first orders from a trader user, the one or more first orders entered manually by a user via an input; receive, via, a plurality of second orders from, the plurality of second orders generated automatically multiple times a second by a mathematical trading algorithm; monitor, by a price limit manager of, real-time changes based on the one or more first orders and the plurality of second orders in market information based on the one or most first orders and plurality of second orders, the market information comprising an indicative market price (IMP); set, by the price limit manager, a trading window at which the one or more first orders and the plurality of second orders are executed during an execution process based on one or more configuration parameters stored in a first database, the trading window defined by a first price limit and a second price limit and comprising the IMP; initiate, the execution process during which the one or more first orders and the plurality of second orders are matched with orders stored in a second according to the trading window; continuously adjust, by the price limit manager, the first price limit and the second price limit based on the real-time changes in the IMP, such that a first gap between the IMP and the first price limit and a second gap between the IMP and the second price limit are substantially equal; detect, by the price limit manager in real-time, the IMP hitting the first price limit due to a volume of the plurality of second orders being received at a rate that exceeds a rate at which the first price limit can be continuously adjusted; initiate, by the price limit manager upon the IMP hitting the first price limit, an electronic timer for a predetermined time period; determine, by the price limit manager, that a price cascade is beginning based on, at least, the IMP again hitting the first price limit a predetermined number of times within the predetermined time period; engage, by the price limit manager in response to the price cascade beginning, a spiking price limit mechanism for controlling the price cascade, the spiking price limit mechanism configured to: repeatedly adjust the first price limit each time the IMP subsequently hits the first price limit, to incrementally reduce a value of the first gap, at an adjustable reduction rate, in comparison to the second gap until the value of the first gap, at an adjustable reduction rate, in comparison to the second gap until the value of the first gap reaches zero, thereby reducing a rate of the price cascade, determine that the value of the first gap reaches zero, detect, in real-time, the IMP reaching the second price limit, and determine, based on the IMP reaching the second price limit, that the price cascade has stopped; and disengage, in response to the price cascade having stopped, the spiking price limit mechanism. This concept of controlling price cascade movements in trading falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim include: memory; one or more processors; by a trading engine of an electronic trading system, electronic interface via a network, interface, electronic, input device; by the trading engine of the electronic trading system, the network; electronic; an automated trading system via the network; the electronic trading system; by the trading engine, electronic, electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic. The additional elements amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system. The specification at [0023] lists that "The machine may be .... or any machine capable of executing instructions 124 (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by the machine." Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of: memory; one or more processors; by a trading engine of an electronic trading system, electronic interface via a network, interface, electronic, input device; by the trading engine of the electronic trading system, the network; electronic; an automated trading system via the network; the electronic trading system; by the trading engine, electronic, electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic; electronic is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-10 and 13-22, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the double patenting base on applicant’s amendment.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s arguments regards to Enfish, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, they made improvement to database technology. Unlike Enfish, the current case is directly to controlling price cascade movements in trading system, which doesn't make any improvement to the computer technology. In the current claim limitation, the processor is generic processor. The applicant has not improved the processor. Therefore, applicant's arguments with respect to Enfish is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the limitations in the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. The claimed invention does not recite improvement to another technology or another technical field or the computing device. The claimed invention does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to specification, the limitations that applicant argues in the specifications are not recited in the claims. Here, the Spec at [0023] lists that "The machine may be .... or any machine capable of executing instructions 124 (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by the machine." Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's arguments alleging the claims are similar to that of DDR Holdings, as they are performed on the internet, this is not persuasive. Applicant's claims do precisely what DDR Holdings explains is fatal to many computer-based patents: "recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet." Id. (emphasis added). Thus, DDR Holdings is readily distinguishable from the present claims. The patent at issue in DDR provided an Internet-based solution to solve a problem unique to the Internet that (1) did not foreclose other ways of solving the problem, and (2) recited a specific series of steps that resulted in a departure from the routine and conventional sequence of events after the click of a hyperlink advertisement. Id. at 1256–57, 1259. The claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet, so DDR has no applicability. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 citing Finjan, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the patentable claims in Finjan, the current claims recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as shown in the office action above. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Berkheimer Memo and additional elements not well-understood, routine, and conventional, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The current claims do not recite anything non-conventional and non-routine. The claim is merely gathered information of information over conventional network. Therefore, the applicant’s 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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695