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 .
This application is a CON of 18/065,912 12/14/2022 PAT 11790449
18/065,912 is a DIV of 16/856,840 04/23/2020 PAT 11556985
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,790,449. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are essentially the broadened version of the parent claims. For example, claim 1 of PAT 11,790,449 is essentially the combination of claim 1 and claim 10 of the present application. Claims 2-9 of PAT 11,790,449 are near identical to claims 2-9 of the present application.
The claim numbers of the present application correlate to the claim numbers of the PAT 11,790,449 as follows:
Present Application
PAT 11,790,449
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
1
11
1
12
2
13
3
14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
1
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards processing data related to options and graphing estimated future values (see “FIELD” in specification). The concept is can be performed by human mentally and with a pen and paper, thus the present claims fall within the Mental Processes grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards processing data related to options and graphing estimated future values (see “FIELD” in specification). The concept comprises determining a current breakeven point of an option, estimating a future strike price of the option, determining a future breakeven point, determining a range as a current price corresponding to a current break event point to a future price corresponding to the future breakeven point, determining a middle breakeven point base on the range, and generating a graph including the current breakeven point, the future breakeven point, and each middle breakeven point. The determining and estimating steps can be performed mentally, and the graphing step can be performed by human with a pen and paper, thus the present claims fall within the Mental Processes grouping. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computer components (i.e., a processor and a memory) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the Mental Processes grouping. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Independent claim 1 recites one processor and a memory as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as receiving user input, performing calculations (i.e., determining and estimating steps), and displaying result (i.e., in graphical form). Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite other additional elements, and the processor and memory are additionally claimed to perform more basic computer functions, such as performing calculations (i.e., determining steps), shading a drawing, and storing data. Claims 11-20 are just the non-transitory computer readable medium version of claims 1-10. The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computers. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Rather, the present claims implement an abstract concept using existing technology in a networked computer environment. The Federal Circuit court ruled that “arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly” is insufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (see Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290). Similarly, processing trading data and presenting the data in graphical form to assists traders in processing information more quickly, as recited in the present claims, is not sufficient. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, the present claims only recite a processor coupled with a memory as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as receiving user input, performing calculations (i.e., determining and estimating steps), and displaying result (i.e., in graphical form). According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. The use of blockchain technology to record data is also not inventive. The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer technology. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Prior Art Cited Not Applied
The closest prior art of record is Homer et al (PGPub 2006/0047597) teaches calculator for analyzing options and option spreads includes a memory storage having software where the software permits a user to input into the system a type of transaction, a type of option contract, a number of option contracts, a strike price and a premium price. A processor in communication with the memory storage uses the software to calculate a maximum profit, maximum loss and breakeven level based on the type of transaction, type of option contract, number of option contracts, the strike price and the premium price entered by the user. A display is in communication with the memory storage and the processor and presents to the user the maximum profit, maximum loss and breakeven level as well additional information. The calculator also provides error trapping and a help function that includes a glossary of terms.
Homer did not disclose generating a zoned graph including the current breakeven point, the future breakeven point, and each middle breakeven point at the corresponding times (as recited in claim 1), wherein the determining each breakeven point further includes, calculating a projected value of the option using a Black-Scholes pricing model, and identifying each breakeven point as between the strike price and a second price using a Newton-Raphson point finding algorithm, wherein the second price is identified using the calculated projected value (as recited in claim 10).
Hodgson et al (PGPub 20100174636) teaches a system, method, and corresponding computer program product facilitates trading of a standardized contract. The terms of the contract may be such that it provides a payout from one party to the other based on the price, yield, level or other measure of an asset, basket, index, financial contract, other financial instrument or some economically significant variable observed at or around two specified times, both such times being after the time that the standardized contract is first available for trading. Alternatively, the terms of the contract may be such that it provides that one party has the right but not the obligation either to purchase or to sell some asset at a price which is determined at a first specified time, such right to be exercised at some time not later than the second specified time, both such times being after the time that the standardized contract is first available for trading. These and other related contracts are described.
Hodgson did not disclose generating a zoned graph including the current breakeven point, the future breakeven point, and each middle breakeven point at the corresponding times (as recited in claim 1), wherein the determining each breakeven point further includes, calculating a projected value of the option using a Black-Scholes pricing model, and identifying each breakeven point as between the strike price and a second price using a Newton-Raphson point finding algorithm, wherein the second price is identified using the calculated projected value (as recited in claim 10).
McLaren (PGPub 2017/0308954) teaches generating a date/breakeven line for option trading. However, McLaren does not distinguish current breakeven point, future breakeven point, and middle breakeven point. Therefore, McLaren fails to disclose generating a zoned graph including the current breakeven point, the future breakeven point, and each middle breakeven point at the corresponding times (as recited in claim 1).
Nevertheless, the claimed process of determining steps and generating a zoned graph including the current breakeven point, the future breakeven point, and each middle breakeven point at the corresponding times can be performed mentally and represented with a pen and paper. The present claims are merely implementing an abstract concept on a generic computer. Therefore, present claims are ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Remarks
In the response filed on 01/06/2026, Applicant did not amend any claim besides claim 3 (minor amendment), compared to the version addressed in the Advisory Action filed on 08/26/2025 and the version addressed in Non-Final Rejection filed on 10/07/2025.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments with regards to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argued that claim 1 “contains limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind and thus claim 1 is not directed to a mental process”. Applicant further explained that claim 1, “requires the operations of a specifically programmed processor that could not be performed in a person’s mind and/or on pen and paper, such as generating a novel graphical user interface (GUI) for displaying estimated future values and future breakeven points of an option contract based on current and updated prices of the underlying stock using a zoned graph” and argued that the human mind is not equipped to generate a zoned graph on a GUI as recited in claim 1. Examiner points out that generating a zoned graph and displaying calculated values on GUI is merely an extra-solution. The graph can be drawn and the calculated results can be written on paper.
The majority of claimed steps in claim 1 (i.e., determine a current breakeven point, estimate a future strike price, determine a future breakeven point, determine a range as a current price corresponding to the current breakeven point to a future price corresponding to the future breakeven point, determine a middle break-even point) can be performed mentally. These steps are recited in high level of generality and they are not outside of human’s compacity. The final step requires generating zoned graph (as shown in FIG. 3). Yet, such graph can clearly be drawn by human on paper with a pen. Examiner also points to the court decision of Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court states “arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly” is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Similarly, arranging trading data in the form of zoned graph on a GUI to assist traders in processing trading information cannot integrate the abstract concept into a practical application.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner further points to Electric Power Group v. Alstom, where the court found computer implementation does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the Mental Processes grouping, if the claim limitations only require off-the-shelf computers to implement. In this case, pre-existing software running on off-the-shelf computer can generate zoned graph as recited in claim 1.
Second, Applicant argued that the present claims are integrated into practical application in Step 2A Prong 2, because the present claims “the claim limitation of generating a GUI displaying a zoned graph is an additional element that transform claim 1 into significantly more than any alleged abstract idea”. Examiner disagrees and points out that the “significantly more” argument belongs to Step 2B. To determine whether an additional element integrates an abstract concept into practical application, we must evaluate whether the additional element improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. In this situation, merely generating a GUI displaying a zoned graph fails to integrate these requirements. Utilizing existing user interface technology to display calculated values and graphs does not improve the functionality of GUI or computer. Applicant argued that the specification suggests viewing zoned may “better understand risks involved in options trading by viewing a zoned graph depicting profit and losss areas of a potential option purchase” (see paragraph 0003 of the specficiation). Examiner points to Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, where the court found “arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly” is insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and thus fails to integrate an abstract concept into practical application. Similarly, the present claims perform determination/calculation steps which can be performed mentally, and arrange the results on a GUI. The present claims do not even include limitations that specify any particular arrangement that assists user to process information more quickly. Indeed, the present claims follow the fact pattern of the ineligible claims in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, because the claims recite a process of obtaining data, analyzing data, and presenting result of the analysis. For these reasons, the present claims fail to integrate the abstract mental process into practical application.
Further, Applicant argued that Examiner’s Step 2A Prong 2 analysis is improper because Examiner has failed to consider the instant claims as a whole and further fails to analyze whether the instant claims impose a “meaningful limit” on the mental process. Yet Applicant did not explain how the claims, as a whole, provide improvement to computer functioning. Examiner also points out that that Step 2A Prong 2 analysis analyze whether the claims “apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment”, not whether the claims impose a meaningful limit. In this case, claim 1 for example does not apply the abstract concept of “processing data related to options and graphing estimated future values” in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept with a generic computer comprising a process and a memory. As discussed earlier, the determining and estimating steps can be performed mentally or by any generic computer or calculator, and the generating graph step can be performed on paper or by any generic computer. The computer implementation is an extra-solution. There is no improvement in computer functionality or GUI technology.
Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent. Examiner maintains the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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 M Behncke can be reached on (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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
JAN-2026