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
The following Non-Final office action is in response to applicant’s RCEX/Amendments/REMARKS filed on 11/28/2025.
Priority Date: Prov.(11/22/2023)>PUB>(05/22/2025)
Claim Status:
Amended claims: 1, 3, 11, and 20-21
Canceled claims: 2, 6,
Pending claims : 1, 3-5, and 7-21
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, and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (Abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, (Step-2B) it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include: (a) Mental processes; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practice; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal behavior or Relations between People]; and (c) Mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Claim Analysis is based on the Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)-(see MPEP § 2106.04(II) and 2106.04(d).
[Step-1] The claims are directed to a method/system/machine, which are a statutory category of invention.
Claim 20 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for Surveillance Alert Configuration with electronic Trading Systems.
[Step-2A]-Prong 1:The claim 20 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception:
The claim 20 recites the limitations of:
storing, in a memory coupled to at least one …, a configuration data structure comprising configuration parameters of a plurality of surveillance alerts for one or more electronic trading systems, wherein the configuration parameters for each of the plurality of surveillance alerts comprises a respective set of configuration parameters, and each configuration parameter in each set of configuration parameters comprises one or more configuration fields each comprising a respective initial value;
displaying, on a display … coupled to the at least one …, a graphical user interface comprising the set of configuration parameters of a selected surveillance alert of the plurality of surveillance alerts, wherein, for each configuration parameter of the set of configuration parameters, the one or more configuration fields are displayed on the graphical user interface;
receiving an operator input via the displayed graphical user interface, the operator input providing a new value for a first configuration field of a first configuration parameter of the selected surveillance alert, wherein the new value is different from the respective initial value of the first configuration field;
in response to receiving the new value for the first configuration field and before the new value for the first configuration field is applied to an active alert configuration of the one or more electronic trading systems:
(a) updating the configuration data structure in the memory to temporarily store the new value in association with the first configuration field, wherein the updated configuration data structure associates an initial value and the new value with the first configuration field and directly or indirectly associates the first configuration field with the selected surveillance alert;
(b) adjusting a first counter, wherein the first counter is configured to track a number of pending configuration changes associated with the selected surveillance alert, wherein the adjusting the first counter includes incrementing the first counter in response to the receiving the new value for the first configuration field;
(c) displaying the adjusted first counter in association with a name of the selected surveillance alert;
(d) adjusting a second counter and display a name of at least one of the one or more electronic trading systems in association with the second counter, concurrently with said displaying the adjusted first counter, wherein the second counter is configured to track a total number of pending configuration changes associated with the one or more electronic trading systems; and
(e) adjusting a third counter and display the third counter, wherein the third counter is configured to track a number of respective surveillance alerts of the one or more electronic trading systems that have at least one pending configuration change; and
in response to receiving a further operator input via the displayed graphical user interface, applying the new value for the first configuration field to an active alert configuration of at least one of the one or more electronic trading systems.
The claimed method/system/machine simply describes series of steps for Surveillance Alert Configuration with electronic Trading Systems.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via human commercial or business or transactional activities/interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by organizing human business activity. For example, without the structure elements language, the claim encompasses the activities that can be performed manually between the users and a third party. These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are business interaction/sale activity that falls within the enumerated group of “certain methods of organizing human activity” in the 2019 PEG.
[Step-2A]-Prong 2:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using one or more servers/processors, devices and computer network to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. 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-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 above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
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, and the claim is not patent eligible. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including independent claims 1, and 21.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-19 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims 2-19 are directed towards:
Using adjusting a second counter and display a name of at least one of the one or more electronic trading systems in association with the second counter, concurrently with said displaying the adjusted first counter, wherein the electronic trading system is associated with the selected surveillance alert and the second counter is configured to track a total number of pending configuration changes associated with the one or more electronic trading systems; wherein the configuration data structure is configured to arrange initial values of the set of parameters and changed values thereof in respective different storage hierarchies, and wherein the counting of inserted new configuration rows in the configuration data structure comprises counting the inserted new configuration rows in the respective storage hierarchy of the changed values; wherein the graphical user interface comprises at least three display areas: a first display area displaying a name of the electronic trading system, a second display area displaying a plurality of surveillance alerts of the electronic trading system, and a third area displaying the plurality of configuration parameters of the selected surveillance alert, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, in response to the changing, render at least one update in each of the three display areas; and wherein a respective enable indicator is displayed in association with an activation level in the fourth display area and with each set of parameters displayed in the second display area, wherein the enable indicator associated with the activation level indicates whether at least one of the displayed sets of parameters is enabled for that activation level and the enable indicator associated with a set of parameters indicates whether that set of parameters is enabled for the electronic trading system.
These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under same rationale.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-19 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waelbroeck et al (US 2004/0059666 A1) in view of RUSSEL et al (US 20120150713 A1), and (US Ushman et al (US 2020/0273104 A1)
Ref claim 1, Waelbroeck discloses a system comprising:
a display device; a memory storing a configuration data structure comprising configuration parameters of a plurality of surveillance alerts for one or more electronic trading system (para [0026]; via the system, a trade facilitation system 100 [referred to as Cloud 9],..receive market data from vendor 60/network 70. Participants access the system through a graphic user interface [GUI] 20 installed at each participant’s workstation [implied a display device]…),
wherein the configuration parameters for each of the plurality of surveillance alerts comprises a respective set of configuration parameters, and each configuration parameter in each set of configuration parameters comprises one or more configuration fields each comprising a respective initial value (para [0035];…the state of the system…the first order entered [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security….); and
at least one processor configured to:
display a graphical user interface comprising the set of configuration parameters of a selected surveillance alert of the plurality of surveillance alerts on the display device, wherein, for each configuration parameter of the set of configuration parameters, the one or more configuration fields are displayed on the graphical user interface (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…[0034]; via …The graphic user interface [GUI] 20 will display active symbols…);
[[ receive an operator input via the displayed graphical user interface, the operator input providing a new value for a first configuration field of a first configuration parameter of the selected surveillance alert, wherein the new value is different from the respective initial value of the first configuration field;]]
in response to changing a configuration of receiving the new value for the first configuration field, and before the new value for the first configuration field is applied to an active alert configuration of the one or more electronic trading systems:
(a) update the configuration data structure in the memory to temporarily store the new value in association with the first configuration field, wherein the updated configuration data structure associates an initial value and the new value with the first configuration field and directly or indirectly associates the first configuration field with the selected surveillance alert (para [0032]; via the likelihood of trades, the system’s Order Manager 130/module 140…GUI 20 of traders with an update every 60 seconds/enter order in the same security. … );
(b) [[ adjust a first counter, wherein the first counter is configured to track a number of pending configuration changes associated with the selected surveillance alert, wherein the adjusting the first counter includes incrementing the first counter in response to the receiving the new value for the first configuration field;]]
(c) display the adjusted first counter in association with a name of the selected surveillance alert (para [0023], traders may enter orders at any price…active symbol flag to be displayed to participants…[0030], The GUI 20 enables a trader/to click on the security’s symbol as displayed in a box on top of the main screen…);
(d) adjust a second counter and display a name of at least one of the one or more electronic trading systems in association with the second counter, concurrently with said displaying the adjusted first counter, wherein the second counter is configured to track a total number of pending configuration changes associated with the one or more electronic trading systems (para [0025-26], Fig. 1; via a trade facilitation system 100 through GUI 20/…receive market data/…BPR/the Execution Engine 50/the Cloud9 system 100 keeps track of the status of its orders in a transactional database 150...); and
(e) adjust a third counter and display the third counter, wherein the third counter is configured to track a number of respective surveillance alerts of the one or more electronic trading systems that have at least one pending configuration change (para [0163]; via The Execution Engine 50….update messages from the data provider 60 and keeps track…the best offer in the given security changes…[0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…); and
in response to receiving a further operator input via the displayed graphical user interface, apply the new value for the first configuration field to an active alert configuration of at least one of the one or more electronic trading systems (para [0192]; via watch list configuration dialog in Fig.8, the user is able to add symbols…[0298-299]; via The system configurations interface…enable the user to trade…to configure GUI/API access to trade on the system…)
Waelbroeck does not explicitly disclose the step to: receive an operator input via the displayed graphical user interface, the operator input providing a new value for a first configuration field of a first configuration parameter of the selected surveillance alert, wherein the new value is different from the respective initial value of the first configuration field.
However, RUSSEL being in the same field of invention discloses the step to receive an operator input via the displayed graphical user interface, the operator input providing a new value for a first configuration field of a first configuration parameter of the selected surveillance alert, wherein the new value is different from the respective initial value of the first configuration field (para [0034]; via Fig.1A; the trade implementation and Analytics system…model 10 include an app 11, users 12, data sources 24 and services 26…[0036]; via to manage the data flow with user’s input [operator input]…[0049]; Fig.2; via Analytics system 101 include N-engine application 110…[0051]; with a GUI 104…[0056]; N-engine …input variables…[0057]; via the A-engine 120…when the user receives the alert…GUI can display a time based graph/violation occurred…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Waelbroeck to include the disclosures as taught by RUSSEL to facilitate operator/user input value changes with trade configuration alert.
Waelbroeck does not explicitly disclose the step to: adjust a first counter, wherein the first counter is configured to track a number of pending configuration changes associated with the selected surveillance alert, wherein the adjusting the first counter includes incrementing the first counter in response to the receiving the new value for the first configuration field.
However, Ushman being in the same field of invention discloses the step to adjust a first counter, wherein the first counter is configured to track a number of pending configuration changes associated with the selected surveillance alert, wherein the adjusting the first counter includes incrementing the first counter in response to the receiving the new value for the first configuration field (para [0033], Fig. 3; via the transaction data processing system 300…may include automated analysis engine 310 server component of charting engine 322b, and alert monitoring engine 325…Alert interface 320…may be a component configured to enable a user to create and configure various types of financial alerts 306 for one or more charts 304 by visual interaction…)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Waelbroeck to include the disclosures as taught by Ushman to facilitate tracking and adjusting of alerts with configuration field.
Claim 2 (canceled), .
Ref claim 3, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein, in response to receiving the new value for the first configuration field, insert a new configuration row in the configuration data structure, and wherein the adjusting the first counter is based on a counting of inserted new configuration rows in the configuration data structure (para [0026]; via the system, a trading facilitation system 100 [Cloud 9],..participants access the system through a graphic user interface [GUI] 20 installed at each participant’s workstation [implied a display device]…).
Ref claim 4, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 3, wherein the configuration data structure is configured to arrange the initial values of the set of parameters and changed values thereof in respective different storage hierarchies, and wherein the counting of inserted new configuration rows in the configuration data structure comprises counting the inserted new configuration rows in the respective storage hierarchy of the changed values (para [0026]; via the system, a trading facilitation system 100 [Cloud 9],..participants access the system through a graphic user interface [GUI] 20 installed at each participant’s workstation [implied a display device]…).
Ref claim 5, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein the configuration data structure comprises a respectively different hierarchical data structure for each electronic trading system of the one or more electronic trading systems, wherein the adjusting the second counter comprises counting said inserted new configuration rows in the respectively different hierarchical data structure of the one or more electronic trading systems (para [0026]; via the system, a trading facilitation system 100 [Cloud 9],..participants access the system through a graphic user interface [GUI] 20 installed at each participant’s workstation [implied a display device]…).
Claim 6 (canceled)
Ref claim 7, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data structure comprises a respectively different hierarchical data structure for initial configurations and changed configurations, wherein said each respectively different hierarchical data structure comprises a respectively different first hierarchical data substructure for each electronic trading system of the one or more electronic trading systems, wherein each said respectively different first hierarchical data substructure comprises a respectively different second hierarchical data substructure for each of one or more surveillance alerts of the plurality of surveillance alerts; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, in response to changing the configuration of the first configuration parameter of the selected surveillance alert, insert a new configuration row in the respectively different second hierarchical data substructure of the selected surveillance alert, wherein the respectively different second hierarchical data substructure of the selected surveillance alert is arranged in the respectively different first hierarchical data substructure of the electronic trading system in the respectively different hierarchical data structure of the changed configurations; and wherein the adjusting the third counter comprises counting respectively different second hierarchical data substructures in the respectively different hierarchical data structure of the changed configurations (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Ref claims 8-10, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data structure comprises information of parent-child relationship between pairs of configuration parameters; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: in response to the changing of a parent configuration parameter via the graphical user interface, automatically adjust the respective first counter associated with each of the sets of configuration parameters that inherits from the parent configuration parameter and automatically adjust the second counter and the third counter, wherein at least one of the sets of configuration parameters that inherits from the parent configuration parameter is associated with another surveillance alert, and wherein the another surveillance alert is configured for another electronic trading system of the one or more electronic trading systems (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Ref claim 11, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface comprises at least three display areas: a first display area displaying a name of the electronic trading system, a second display area displaying a plurality of surveillance alerts of the electronic trading system, and a third area displaying the plurality of configuration parameters of the selected surveillance alert, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, in response to the changing, render at least one update in each of the three display areas (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Ref claim 12, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a fourth display area displaying a plurality of activation levels of which one activation level is associated with the displayed plurality of configuration parameters, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, in response to the changing, update the fourth display area (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Ref claim 13, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 12, wherein a respective enable indicator is displayed in association with an activation level in the fourth display area and with each set of parameters displayed in the second display area, wherein the enable indicator associated with the activation level indicates whether at least one of the displayed sets of parameters is enabled for that activation level and the enable indicator associated with a set of parameters indicates whether that set of parameters is enabled for the electronic trading system (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Ref claim 14, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
in response to receiving the new value for the first configuration field, changing an appearance of at least one of a first field and a displayed name of the first configuration parameter, concurrently with said displaying the adjusted first counter (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Ref claim 15, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
in response to the changing of the first configuration parameter, change an appearance of a displayed name of an activation level associated with the first configuration parameter, wherein the activation level is one of a plurality of activation levels each of which is associated with one or more configuration parameters (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Ref claim 16, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
in response to the changing of the first configuration parameter, display a value of the first configuration parameter after the change, a value of the first configuration parameter before the change, and a type of the change (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Ref claim 17, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
in response to changing a configuration of a second configuration parameter of the selected set of parameters, validate the changing of the second configuration parameter and in response to a failing of the validation, changing an appearance of at least one of the fields of the second configuration parameter, a displayed name of the second configuration parameter, and a displayed name of the electronic trading system (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Ref claim 18, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 17, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
in response to changing a configuration of the second configuration parameter of the selected set of parameters and in response to a failing of the validation, change an appearance of at least one of the fields of another configuration parameter, wherein the validation detects the another configuration parameter as a duplicate of the second configuration parameter (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Ref claim 19, Waelbroeck discloses the system according to claim 18, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
in response to changing a configuration of a second configuration parameter of the selected set of parameters via the graphical user interface and in response to a failing of the validation, change an appearance of a displayed name of a surveillance alert associated with the second configuration parameter, wherein the surveillance alert is associated with one of a plurality of surveillance alerts each of which is associated with one or more configuration parameters (para [0026]; via a trading system 100…[workstation/processor]…a graphical user interface [GUI] 20… [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security…. [0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…).
Claims 20-21 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/28/2025 have been fully considered and they are deemed to be non-persuasive:
Response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection is addressed in the above rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues further in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite ‘Significantly More’ than abstract idea” and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One-Prong two-2B].
In addition to 101 rejections Applicant noted about 103 rejections with applied prior arts.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole including amended features are provided above/again based on the latest Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG>Step 2A-Prong 1 & Prong 2-Step-2B].
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I'ntl. 573 U.S. (2014); Under Alice.
APPLICANT”s REMARKS:
“Entry of the above amendments and reconsideration are respectfully requested.
Claims 1,3-5,7-21 are pending.”
Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argued that, “Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Office Action alleges that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "certain methods of organizing human activity” (specifically "business interaction/sale activity") without significantly more.
Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. Amended claim 1 is eligible under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) because (A) it is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific improvement in the capability of a graphical user interface (GUI) for managing computer system configurations; and (B) even if an abstract idea were recited, the claim integrates it into a practical application that solves a technical problem rooted in computer technology.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea:
The claims are directed to a specific improvement in the functioning of a computer, specifically a GUI that enables the safe configuration of distributed electronic systems.
The Office Action characterizes the claims as "business interaction/sale activity."
However, amended claim 1 recites a specific feedback loop for managing data configuration states in memory before they are applied to a live system:
Step 2A, Prong 2: The Claims Integrate the Idea into a Practical Application:
Even if the Office Action were to identify an abstract idea (e.g., "collecting and
displaying information"), the claims integrate this concept into a practical application that provides a technical benefit.
The Examiner cites Electric Power Group, LLC, ….;…;
Active Configuration vs…;…;
Specific Data Structure:…;…;
Improvement to Computer Functionality: …;…,
By tracking pending changes at three distinct levels (Alert, System, Alert Type)
simultaneously, the claimed embodiment imposes meaningful limits that transform the concept into a specific tool for risk visualization in system administration.
Step 2B: The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept:
Finally, even under Step 2B, the claims recite an inventive concept that is significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.”
In Response: Examiner Disagrees.
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from trading systems is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(storing, in a memory…, a configuration data structure …; displaying, …, a graphical user interface…; receiving an operator input…; updating …..;adjusting…; displaying…; adjusting…;…electronic trading systems.)
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
(storing, in a memory…, a configuration data structure …; displaying, …, a graphical user interface…; receiving an operator input…; updating …..;adjusting…; displaying…; adjusting…;…electronic trading systems.)
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “storing, in a memory…, a configuration data structure …; displaying, …, a graphical user interface…; receiving an operator input…; updating …..;adjusting…; displaying…; adjusting…;…electronic trading systems.”)
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0044]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, the claims 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 (Claims: e.g., processor, machine learning, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims (3-5, 7-19) have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims. These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “ apply it ( or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional function or (See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and (f)).
Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because associated technological elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP § 2106.05 (d) and (f)) (specification [0016-31] computing system, computing device, mobile device, payment processor, network).
Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, and 7--21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
What Applicant describes here is how any generic computer process data without stating how or if this transformation is intended to in, some way improves the function of the computer itself.
Examiner notes that the processor limitations and the claim as a whole do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a device performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract.
The Court gave examples, which included an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvement to the function of the computer itself; or some other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Such as in Diamond v. Diehr, the claims were found statutory in which the Arrhenius equation is used to improve a process of controlling the operation of a mold in curing rubber parts.
A generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Examiner notes that the instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related or economic problem. The focus of the claimed invention in the present is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and database technology. The Courts have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea. BuySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353, 1355; see, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48.
The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer [] a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant argued that, “Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Waelbroeck et al (US 20040059666 Al, hereinafter "Waelbroeck") in view of Ushman et al (US 20200273104 Al, hereinafter "Ushman"). Applicant respectfully traverses.
The Examiner relied on Ushman for teaching the adjustment of a counter.
Ushman's system, referred to by the Examiner in paragraph [0033], tracks triggered conditions of live financial alerts (e.g., alert monitoring engine 325). Ushman's flowchart (Fig. 8, step 812) involves checking if a Trigger Condition is met and then generating an Alert Notification (step 814).
Without acquiescing to the rejection, Applicant has amended claim 1 to incorporate the substance of claims 2 and 6. Amended claim 1 requires adjusting a counter that tracks the number of pending configuration changes (i.e., user intent before deployment). This process occurs entirely in memory (element (c)(i)) before the actual alert is applied (element (f)). ;…;…;…
Therefore, amended claim 1 is allowable over the combination of Waelbroeck, Russel and Ushman. Amended independent claims 20 and 21 recite similar distinguishing features as amended claim 1, and are allowable for at least the same reasons as amended claim 1. The dependent claims too are allowable for at least the same reasons as amended claim 1.
Claims 2 and 6 are cancelled without prejudice. All rejections having been addressed; allowance of this entire application is respectfully requested.”
In Response: Examiner Disagrees with applicant’s assertions.
However, Waelbroeck discloses in views of RUSSEL et al & Ushman et al- all limitations including uploaded claims-limitations.
Waelbroeck discloses, via (para [0026]; via the system, a trade facilitation system 100 [referred to as Cloud 9],..receive market data from vendor 60/network 70. Participants access the system through a graphic user interface [GUI] 20 installed at each participant’s workstation [implied a display device]… [0035];…the state of the system…the first order entered [0051-52]; via Active symbol Flag, The system will push active symbol alerts…of a security….[0163]; via The Execution Engine 50….update messages from the data provider 60 and keeps track…the best offer in the given security changes…[0189]; via the GUI enables traders to view credit alerts generated by the system…to execute a large block trade…[0192]; via watch list configuration dialog in Fig.8, the user is able to add symbols…[0298-299]; via The system configurations interface…enable the user to trade…to configure GUI/API access to trade on the system…).
However, RUSSEL being in the same field of invention discloses the step to receive an operator input via the displayed graphical user interface, the operator input providing a new value for a first configuration field of a first configuration parameter of the selected surveillance alert, wherein the new value is different from the respective initial value of the first configuration field (para [0034]; via Fig.1A; the trade implementation and Analytics system…model 10 include an app 11, users 12, data sources 24 and services 26…[0036]; via to manage the data flow with user’s input [operator input]…[0049]; Fig.2; via Analytics system 101 include N-engine application 110…[0051]; with a GUI 104…[0056]; N-engine …input variables…[0057]; via the A-engine 120…when the user receives the alert…GUI can display a time based graph/violation occurred…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Waelbroeck to include the disclosures as taught by RUSSEL to facilitate operator/user input value changes with trade configuration alert.
AND
However, Ushman being in the same field of invention discloses the step to adjust a first counter, wherein the first counter is configured to track a number of pending configuration changes associated with the selected surveillance alert, wherein the adjusting the first counter includes incrementing the first counter in response to the receiving the new value for the first configuration field (para [0033], Fig. 3; via the transaction data processing system 300…may include automated analysis engine 310 server component of charting engine 322b, and alert monitoring engine 325…Alert interface 320…may be a component configured to enable a user to create and configure various types of financial alerts 306 for one or more charts 304 by visual interaction…)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by Waelbroeck to include the disclosures as taught by Ushman to facilitate tracking and adjusting of alerts with configuration field.
CONCLUSION
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Van Luchene et al (US 2008/0207327 A1) discloses Virtual Environment with Alerts.
Hanlon R. Julie et al (WO 2012/100327 A1) discloses Method and System for Generating and Providing Data Alerts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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 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. 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.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691