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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues that the claims as now amended recite a specific
technological architecture for an electronic trading platform that provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to other technology or technical filed and applies or uses the alleged judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (2019 PEG, factor 5).
In response, the instant claims do not appear to improve on any technology. Applicant is directed to DDR. The problem that was solved in DDR was with the architecture of their overall system. The instant claims merely recite displaying data, receiving data, and determine data.
These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the “processor” with a “memory” and “input circuitry”.
The claimed timer is neither a computer system or processor.
None of the steps and elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed processor with the input circuitry and memory are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In response, the application of a processor with an input circuitry and memory to perform
business functions are not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible form. For example, the Internet having web pages to present or to gather or provide data is a tool to facilitate any intended activities via a generic computer processor. The presentment or receiving and communicating of data are routine generic computer functions (see page 7, July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The instant claims recite no physical structural details of a server, computer, processor or a computerized system to accomplish the intended functions. The claims are not tied to any specific automated computer apparatus. Computer elements that perform each of the functions are not explicitly recited. A statutory claim would recite an automated machine implemented method or system with specific structures for performing the claimed invention so as to provide 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. Each claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Regarding Step 2B, the reliance of a computer or computing system to perform its routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive incept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
As noted in the applicant’s specification, there is not a specific structure or computer components to perform the claimed functions. The generic computing system having a processor with a memory and input circuitry can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components. However, there is not a specific or new algorithm noted in the applicant’s specification to generate the claimed functions. The claimed processor noted in the applicant's specification is a generic computer processor performing generic computer functions.
Furthermore, there is not a showing or description of generating and receiving data or information, and providing the data to a computing system to effect specific improvements to the computing system. Furthermore there is a lacking of evidence that the claims improve the manner in which the computing system receives data or information, and determines data and flags data using the processor, as the claims in Enfish had performed their claimed invention via a “self-referential table” for a computer database. Applicant is being referred to Enfish, 822, F.3d at 1327, 1337.
The displaying of data on a graphical user interface does not appear to improve on any technology because most data are usually outputted on an output device on displayed on a computer screen or an a graphical user interface. Such descriptive data can be viewed as a data gathering function or an insignificant post solution activity similar to a transmitting function.
The claimed functions of “determining” and “imposing” by a processor or electronic device are interpreted as generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual functions. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data are interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the processor. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The specification does not bulge with the disclosure, but only spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of simulating a trading effect in an electronic marketplace
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
A 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims as now amended is found below.
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 2-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, 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.
Specifically, claims 2 and 17 are directed to a method. Claim 10 is directed to an apparatus. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
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).
The claims recite the abstract idea absent the bold limitations.
Claim 2 recites:
displaying, on a graphical user interface of an electronic trading platform, the limited- liquidity financial instrument in two uniquely identified versions, a first version configured for trading liquidity and a second version configured for trading terms, wherein the first version includes a width of a predetermined bid-offer spread, a size of a market that accompanies the width, and a timer;
receiving, via input circuitry a first order corresponding to a price and volume associated with the predetermined bid-offer spread, the first order executable with a counterorder that trades with the first order and includes a commitment by a first user to make a two-way market in the financial instrument at the predetermined bid-offer spread;
flagging the counterorder if the counterorder fails to set the predetermined bid-offer spread;
initiating, via at least one processor a first timer tracking a first time elapsed since occurrence of a trade of the financial instrument to a first predetermined time to make the two-way market;
determining that the first time elapsed since occurrence of the trade exceeds the first predetermined time to make the two-way market, and updating the time display in real-time on the graphical user interface to reflect the first time elapsed;
responsive to the determining that the first predetermined time is exceeded, imposing a first penalty on the first user that entered commitment to make the two-way market in the financial instrument at the predetermined bid-offer spread and failed to submit the two-way market in the second version of the graphical user interface, wherein imposing the first penalty comprises restricting the first user's ability to submit new liquidity orders on the electronic trading platform.
Claim 3 recites: generating electronic commands to submit a default market when the first predetermined time is exceeded.
Claim 4 recites comprising: initiating a second timer tracking a second time elapsed since submitting of the default market to a second predetermined time to buy or sell at provided levels of the default market.
Claim 5 recites: determining that the second time elapsed since submitting of the default market exceeds the second predetermined time; and responsive to the determining that the second predetermined time is exceeded, automatically executing an order to buy or sell for the default market for a second user based on a prestored default choice for the second user.
Claim 6 recites: responsive to the determining that the second predetermined time is exceeded, imposing a second penalty on the second user for failing to meet a prior obligation to buy or sell at provided levels of the first user.
Claim 8 recites wherein the second penalty includes a restriction of participation rights on the second user, in association with the obligation to buy or sell at the provided levels of the first user.
Claim 9 recites wherein the default market is based on existing live prices.
Claim 10 recites:
input circuitry;
memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor, wherein the instructions are executable by the at least one processor to cause the electronic device to:
display, on a graphical user interface of an electronic trading platform, the limited-liquidity financial instrument in two uniquely identified versions, a first version configured for trading liquidity and a second version configured for trading terms, wherein the first version includes a width of a predetermined bid-offer spread, a size of a market that accompanies the width, and a timer;
receive, via the input circuitry, a first order corresponding to a price and volume associated with the predetermined bid-offer spread, the first order executable with a counterorder that trades with the first order and includes a commitment by a first user to make a two-way market in a financial instrument at the predetermined bid-offer spread;
flag the counterorder if the counterorder fails to set the predetermined bid-offer spread;
initiate a first timer tracking a first time elapsed since occurrence of a trade of the financial instrument to a first predetermined time to make the two-way market and update the time display in real-time on the graphical user interface to reflect the first time elapsed;
determine that the first time elapsed since occurrence of the trade exceeds the first predetermined time to make the two-way market; and
responsive to the determining that the first predetermined time is exceeded, impose a first penalty on the first user that entered commitment to make the two-way market in the financial instrument at the predetermined bid-offer spread and failed to submit the two-way market in the second version of the graphical user interface, wherein imposing the first penalty comprises restricting the first user's ability to submit new liquidity orders on the electronic trading platform.
Claim 11 recites wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to: generate electronic commands to submit a default market when the first predetermined time is exceeded.
Claim 12 recites wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to: initiate a second timer tracking a second time elapsed submitting of the default market to a second predetermined time to buy or sell at provided levels of the default market.
Claim 13 recites executable by the at least one processor to: determine that the second time elapsed since submitting of the default market exceeds the second predetermined time; and
responsive to the determining that the second predetermined time is exceeded, automatically execute an order to buy or sell for the default market for a second user based on a prestored default choice for the second user.
Claim 14 recites: the at least one processor to:
responsive to the determining that the second predetermined time is exceeded, impose a second penalty on the second user for failing to meet a prior obligation to buy or sell at provided levels of the first user.
Claim 15 recites wherein the first penalty includes a restriction of participation rights on the first user, in association with the commitment to make a two-way market.
Claim 17 recites: executable by at least one processor of an electronic device to cause the electronic device to:
display, on a graphical user interface of an electronic trading platform, the limited-liquidity financial instrument in two uniquely identified versions, a first version configured for trading liquidity and a second version configured for trading terms, wherein the first version includes a width of a predetermined bid-offer spread, a size of a market that accompanies the width, and a timer;
receive, via input circuitry, a first order corresponding to a price and volume associated with the predetermined bid-offer spread, the first order executable with a counterorder that trades with the first order and includes a commitment by a first user to make a two-way market in a financial instrument at the predetermined bid-offer spread;
flag the counterorder if the counterorder fails to set the predetermined bid-offer spread;
initiate a first timer tracking a first time elapsed since occurrence of a trade of the financial instrument to a first predetermined time to make the two-way market and updated the time display in real-time on the graphical user interface to reflect the first time elapsed;
determine that the first time elapsed since occurrence of the trade exceeds the first predetermined time to make the two-way market; and
responsive to the determining that the first predetermined time is exceeded, impose a first penalty on the first user that entered commitment to make the two-way market in the financial instrument at the predetermined bid-offer spread and failed to submit the two-way market in the second version of the graphical user interface, wherein imposing the first penalty comprises restricting the first user's ability to submit new liquidity orders on the electronic trading platform.
Claim 18 recites: further executable by the at least one processor to:
initiate a second timer tracking a second time elapsed submitting of a default market to a second predetermined time to buy or sell at provided levels of the default market.
Claim 19 recites: further executable by the at least one processor to: determine that the second time elapsed since submitting of the default market exceeds the second predetermined time; and responsive to the determining that the second predetermined time is exceeded, automatically execute an order to buy or sell for the default market for a second user based on a prestored default choice for the second user.
Claim 20 recites further executable by the at least one processor to: responsive to the determining that the second predetermined time is exceeded, impose a second penalty on the second user for failing to meet a prior obligation to buy or sell at provided levels of the first user.
Claims 2, 10 and 17 remain similar to the functions of providing a fundamental economic practice such as concepts related to agreements between people of the performance of financial transactions and concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk).
Applicant is still to be noted that the steps or functions of “displaying” or “updating a display” involve[s] an insignificant post solution activity. The function of receiving a trade or a first order are similar to concepts that have been identified as abstracts by the courts as found in buySafe which involved the creating of a contractual relationship. The functions or steps of receiving also involve a data gathering function which an insignificant solution activity.
Functions of flagging a counterorder and imposing a flag involve a financial decision. Functions of initiating a timer and the determining function involve a mental step. This function can also be done with a minimum computer involvement.
If so, 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.
The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not contain any structures or a means or computer elements to perform any of the claimed functions.
The type of data being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations. Therefore the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Here, the claimed concept still falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The BRI of the claimed limitations amounts to the functions of “determine that the first time elapsed since occurrence of the trade exceeds the first predetermined time to make the two-way market; and responsive to the determining that the first predetermined time is exceeded, impose a first penalty on the first user that entered commitment to make the two-way market in the financial instrument at the predetermined bid-offer spread and failed to submit the two-wav market, and responsive to the determining that the first predetermined time is exceeded, imposing a first penalty on the first user that entered to make the two-way market in the financial instrument at the predetermined bid-offer spread and failed to submit the two-way market”.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations.
The limitations performing steps or functions of:
“determining that the first time elapsed since occurrence of the trade exceeds the first predetermined time to make the two-way market, and responsive to the determining that the first predetermined time is exceeded, imposing a first penalty on the first user that entered commitment to make the two-way market in the financial instrument at the predetermined bid-offer spread and failed to submit the two-way market” amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(1)), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer and “any kind of digital computer” including generic commercially available devices.
The claimed “input circuitry”, “processor(s)”, the “graphical user interface” and “trading platform” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
The claims recite displaying data, receiving data, flagging an order, initiating a timer and determining data.
Performing steps by a generic machine, computing device or one or more processors with memories merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05¢h). As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Receiving and determining data are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or computing device which receive data and determine data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions to “responsive to the determining that the first predetermined time is exceeded, imposing a first penalty on the first user that entered commitment to make the two-way market in the financial instrument at the predetermined bid-offer spread and failed to submit the two-way market”.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving data by electronic means or hardware amounts to receiving data over a network has been recognized by the courts as routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, LiS USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting “an input circuitry”, a “processor”, a “graphical user interface” and “trading platform” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer or processor.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer or processor for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for flagging data and determining data, and performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processor”, “graphical user interface” and “trading platform” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the 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.
Accordingly, claims 2, 10 and 17 are is directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole remain being patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael W. Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights