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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
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 1-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Claim 1: Ineligible.
STEP 1:
The claim recites a series of acts. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A (PRONG 1):
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the steps of receiving security transaction data reflecting transactions of a plurality of securities within a securities account, wherein the securities account is associated with a user; identifying a particular security of the plurality of securities that corresponds to an offer; determining, based on the security transaction data, that a minimum quantity of shares have a holding period greater than a minimum holding period specified by the offer by: analyzing transaction data corresponding to the particular security from the security transaction data in reverse chronological order; for each analyzed transaction, reversing a quantity of shares purchased or sold in the transaction to determine a quantity of shares held for a period preceding the transaction; and terminating the analysis upon reaching either (i) a transaction occurring before the minimum holding period or (ii) a reconstructed quantity less than the minimum quantity; verifying the offer based on determining that the minimum quantity of shares have the holding period greater than the minimum holding period specified by the offer; and transmitting the offer to a first computing device associated with the securities account and the user. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”), or in the alternative, the organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions or managing personal relationship/interactions between people. These limitations fall under the “mental processes” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” groups (Step 2A1-Yes). See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2):
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of a processor and memory (computer components). The computer components in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing generic computer functions. These generic processor/memory limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, the additional element of “wherein transmitting the offer is configured to cause an alert to be displayed within a graphical user interface of the first computing device” is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)
STEP 2B:
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 with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the steps “wherein transmitting the offer is configured to cause an alert to be displayed within a graphical user interface of the first computing device”, was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these steps are anything other than conventional steps, and Official Notice is hereby taken that it is notoriously old and well known in the art to display an alert in the form of SMS, email or push notification as forms of electronic communication. Accordingly, a conclusion that these steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer option 4. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo.
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 (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 20 recite corresponding system and non-transitory computer-readable medium equivalents of claim 1. This claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 2-5, and 12-15 recite wherein the security transaction data includes information on the dates of a plurality of transactions involving the plurality of securities and quantities of the plurality of securities that purchased or sold in the plurality of transactions; wherein verifying the offer comprises determining that the holding period exceeds a minimum holding period specified by the offer; wherein verifying the offer comprises determining that a minimum quantity of shares have a holding period greater than the minimum holding period; wherein determining the holding period includes analyzing transactions of the particular security from the security transaction data, wherein the transactions are analyzed in reverse chronological order to ensure that the minimum quantity of shares was held for all of the minimum holding period.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 6-7 and 16 recite receiving, from the first computing device, a request to redeem the offer; and redeeming the offer on behalf of the first computing device. wherein redeeming the offer includes at least one of (i) providing a discount code for use at a third-party shopping platform, (ii) providing access to a company store provided by a company associated with the particular security, (iii) processing a transaction with the company associated with the particular security on behalf of the first computing device.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 8 and 10 recite wherein the offer includes access to content regarding a company associated with the particular security, the content including one or more of written content, audio content, and video content; wherein the graphical user interface includes ads that, when selected, redirect to content accessible without leaving the graphical user interface.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
Here the additional element of the graphical user interface does not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 9 and 19 recite wherein the user is notified of the offer via the alert, wherein displaying the alert comprises performing at least one of: displaying a link to redeem the offer via the graphical user interface of the first computing device, or displaying a push notification via the graphical user interface of the first computing device, and wherein transmitting the offer to the first computing device includes; transmitting a short message service (SMS) message to the user that includes the offer, wherein transmitting the SMS message is configured to cause the offer to be displayed via the graphical user interface of the first computing device; or transmitting an email to the user that includes the offer, wherein transmitting the email is configured to cause the offer to be displayed via the graphical user interface of the first computing device.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1 (see analyses of Steps 2A (Prong 2) and B, supra). They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 21 and 22 recite wherein the offer is associated with a web platform; and wherein the offer includes a currency for the web platform.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
Here the additional elements of the web platform and currency do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements in the claimed invention are generic computer components (processors and memory) performing generic computer functions. Furthermore, displaying an alert on a GUI as a form of communication is notoriously well known and conventional in the art. See additional analyses above. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See PTO-892 and prior office action for the relevance of the cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
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.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691