DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
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.
2. Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "The method of claim 6" in line 1. Claim 6 is canceled. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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.
3. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of, store a virtual specialist program configured to regulate derivative financial instrument and a virtual specialist portfolio…; store a virtual reserve bank program to set interest rates; store a gaming program containing instructions to support a plurality of users in buying and selling the derivative financial instrument, update user portfolios based, at least in part, on the user’s buying a selling, and determine a winner among the users based on a comparison of the user portfolios; execute buy and sell orders…; store a buy-sell imbalance…; receive a first order to buy the derivative financial instrument; receive a second order to sell the derivative financial instrument; determine a market price based on the first order, the second order and the buy-sell imbalance, wherein determining market price further comprises: setting a positive security price threshold (PSPT) constant and a negative security price threshold (NSPT) constant in a data table for the derivative financial instrument, when the buy-sell imbalance is greater than the PSPT, decrementing the buy-sell imbalance by the PSPT and adding a security price increment to the market price, and when the buy-sell imbalance is less than the NSPT, incrementing the buy-sell imbalance by the PSPT and subtracting the security price increment from the market price, and execute a trade at the determined market price, determine an initial price of the financial instrument based at least in part on a characteristic of a contestant in a contest, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention allows for trading based on tournament-style events which is a fundamental economic practice (including hedging, mitigating risk). The mere nominal recitation of memory operable to store a virtual specialist program containing instructions, which when executed by at least one generic processor, direct the processor(s) to perform the claimed steps/functions, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— at least one generic processor and a memory. The processor(s) and memory are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e., a memory operable containing instructions executable by a processor to store a virtual reserve bank program, the memory operable to store a gaming program containing instructions executable by a processor, the processor performing generic computer functions of set interest rates, support a plurality of users in buying and selling derivative financial instrument, update user portfolios and determine a winner among the users based on comparison of the user portfolios, execute buy and sell orders, storing a buy-sell imbalance, receiving an order to buy a derivative financial instrument, selling a derivative financial instrument, determine a market price, setting a positive security price threshold (PSPT) constant and a negative security price threshold (NSPT) constant in a data table, decrementing and incrementing buy-sell imbalances, execute a trade at the determined market price, determine an initial price of the financial instrument) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claim 5 and hence claim 5 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 5 recites at least one processor that amounts to generic computer implementation.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using at least one generic processor and a memory amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-4, 7-9 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim 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. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-9 is/are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
4. In response to the amendment of claims 1 and 5, the Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection.
The remaining arguments filed 9/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of the Remarks, Applicants argue that under Step 2A, prong II, the current claims recite a practical application because the claims recite specific technological components and expressly require implementation of the abstract concept via a system architecture comprising memory, at least one processor, and executable instructions stored in memory. Applicants contend that these components are not recited at a high level of generality, but rather in a manner that confines the claim to a particular machine-based implementation. The arguments are not convincing.
The components recited above function in their ordinary capacity. The claims recite only common computer elements, e.g., “processor(s)”, and “memory” recognized as generic computer technology by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2357; Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 713, 722-23. Merely confining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not establish a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claims confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.” In re Mohaptra, 842 F. APP' x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicants argue that claims 1 and 5 recite a specific market price calculation tied to a data structure and the claim amendments add concrete rules for determining the "market price" based on a "buy-sell imbalance" and security price threshold constants (PSPT and NSPT) stored in a data table. Applicants further argue that the recited technique requires updating the imbalance in memory, comparing it against threshold constants, and programmatically adjusting the market price by discrete increments or decrements and that the steps transform the abstract idea of trading into a rule-based computational mechanism that modifies stored data and drives the execution of trades in the simulated environment resulting in features that ensure that the claim is directed to a technologically implemented simulation system rather than the abstract idea of financial trading itself and therefore, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, consistent with MPEP §2106.05(a) (improvements to computer functionality), § 2106.05(b) (use of a particular machine), and § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Applicant alleges that the claim elements therefore are “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Yet, the difficulty with the Applicants’ argument concerning the rules for determining the “market price,” is that these limitations are part of the abstract idea itself. They are not additional elements to be considered when determining whether the claims include additional elements or combination of elements that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In other words, the inventive concept under step 2B cannot be the judicial exception itself.
The only claim elements beyond the judicial exception are the claimed one or more generic processors and a memory containing instructions executable by the processor(s), i.e., generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions—a determination amply supported by, and fully consistent with the Specification (see, e.g., Spec. [0103]-[0107]).
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere 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), as is the case here.
The Examiner fails to see, and the Applicant fails to point out, how the steps are unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
5. 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 ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (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 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694