DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of June 26, 2024. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
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.
2. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of intermediated settlement or facilitating aa commercial transaction between parties without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 is directed to a method which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites “a method for supporting an asset transaction, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, from a first trader … using an …, asset transaction request information that targets a second trader … not using the …;
… to be transmitted to the
second trader …with reference to the asset transaction
request information;
receiving, from the second trader …, asset transaction acceptance information corresponding to the asset transaction request information; and
confirming execution of an asset transaction between the first trader … and the second trader … with reference to the asset transaction acceptance information”. These limitations describe an abstract idea of intermediated settlement or facilitating a commercial transaction between parties and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interactions). Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
3. The claim also recites as additional elements such as “first trader node, asset transaction platform, second trader node, generating a first link to be transmitted to the second trader node, “ which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
4. Further, as the additional elements of claim 1 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
5. Claim 8-9 also recite the abstract idea of idea of intermediated settlement or facilitating aa commercial transaction between parties and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interactions) step one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 8 includes the additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program for executing the method of Claim 1”. Claim 9 includes the additional elements of “system, first reception unit configured to receive, first trader node, asset transaction platform, second trader node, generation unit configured to generate a first link to be transmitted to the second trade node, second reception unit configured, asset transaction management unit configured”. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
6. Claims 2 and 10 each recites “wherein the first link is directly transmitted to the second trader node via the first trader node, or directly transmitted from the asset transaction platform to the second trader node” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
7. Claims 3 and 11 each recite “wherein in response to the first link being transmitted to the second trader node, a second link for management of the executed asset transaction is transmitted to the second trader node together with the first link” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
8. Claims 4 and 12 each recite “wherein the … is capable of changing conditions of the executed asset transaction or canceling the executed asset transaction via the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim lists “second trader node and second link” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
9. Claims 5 and 13 each recite “wherein in response to the … desiring to change the conditions of the executed asset transaction or cancel the executed asset transaction, a notification is provided to the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim lists “second trader node and first trader node” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
10. Claims 6 and 14 each recite “wherein the change of the conditions of the executed asset transaction or the cancellation of the executed asset transaction by the … is confirmed in response to a consent of the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim lists “second trader node and first trader node” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
11. Claims 7 and 15 each recite “wherein the … is capable of changing conditions of the asset transaction corresponding to the asset transaction request information and transmitting the asset transaction request information back to the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim lists “second trader node and first trader node” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
12. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
13. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
14. Claim 1 recites generating "confirming execution of an asset transaction". However, the specification does not provide details on what the limitation, “confirming execution”, comprises. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed. (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I). Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as the claim recites similar language, “…confirm execution of an asset transaction …”.
15. Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are rejected as each depends on claims 1 and 9.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim 9 recites the limitation “asset transaction management unit”. which does not use the word “means” but is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses generic placeholder, that is coupled with functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifiers.
This claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
17. Claims 1-2, 4, 8-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woo [KR-20190051366-A] in view of Pessin [US Patent No. 7,590,595 B2] and further in view of Aielli [US Pub No. 2017/0161807 A1].
18. Regarding claim 1, Woo discloses a method for supporting an asset transaction, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, from a first trader node using an asset transaction platform, asset transaction request information (pages 6, 11);
receiving, from the second trader node connected to the asset transaction platform via the first link, asset transaction acceptance information corresponding to the asset transaction request information (pages 6, 11); and
confirming execution of an asset transaction between the first trader node and the second trader node with reference to the asset transaction acceptance information (pages 6, 11).
Woo does not disclose however Pessin teaches a second trader node not using the asset transaction platform (Col. 37 lines 55-65). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the disclosure of Woo to include the teachings of Pessin. The rationale to combine the teachings would be to support network collaborative transaction services that leverage the real network-advantage of multiple connected systems, users, providers, customers, buyers, sellers, etc.
Woo does not disclose however Aielli teaches generating a first link to be transmitted to the second trader node with reference to the asset transaction request information (Abstract, 0005, 0008, 0024, 0071 – which listings include links to information, and 0109). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the disclosure of Woo to include the teachings of Aielli. The rationale to combine the teachings would be ability for its users to efficiently and effectively match with other users,
19. Regarding claims 2 and 10, Woo in view of Pessin and Aielli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first link is directly transmitted to the second trader node via the first trader node, or directly transmitted from the asset transaction platform to the second trader node (pages 6, 11).
20. Regarding claims 4 and 12, Woo discloses wherein the second trader node is capable of changing conditions of the executed asset transaction or canceling the executed asset transaction via the second link (pages 6, 11).
21. Regarding claim 8, Woo discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored thereon a computer program for executing the method of Claim 1 (pages 6, 11).
22. Regarding claim 9, Woo discloses a system to support an asset transaction, the system comprising:
a first reception unit configured to receive, from a first trader node using an asset transaction platform, asset transaction request information that targets a second trader node not using the asset transaction platform (pages 6, 11);
a (pages 6, 11);
a second reception unit configured to receive, from the second trader node connected to the asset transaction platform via the first link, asset transaction acceptance information corresponding to the asset transaction request information (pages 6, 11); and
an asset transaction management unit configured to confirm execution of an asset transaction between the first trader node and the second trader node with reference to the asset transaction acceptance information (pages 6, 11).
Woo does not disclose however Pessin teaches a second trader node not using the asset transaction platform (Col. 37 lines 55-65). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the disclosure of Woo to include the teachings of Pessin. The rationale to combine the teachings would be to support network collaborative transaction services that leverage the real network-advantage of multiple connected systems, users, providers, customers, buyers, sellers, etc.
Woo does not disclose however Aielli teaches generation unit configured to generate a first link to be transmitted to the second trader node with reference to the asset transaction request information (0035). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the disclosure of Woo to include the teachings of Aielli. The rationale to combine the teachings would be automatically executing predefined trading rules upon detecting announcements of economic indicators and/or other news related data associated with the trading strategies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
23. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
24. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woo [KR-20190051366-A] in view of Pessin [US Patent No. 7,590,595 B2], in view of Aielli et al. [US Pub No. 2017/0161807 A1], and further in view of Katz et al. [US Pub 2004/0068462 A1].
25. Regarding claims 3 and 11, Woo does not disclose however Katz teaches wherein in response to the first link being transmitted to the second trader node, a second link for management of the executed asset transaction is transmitted to the second trader node together with the first link (0019, 0024, 0027, 0031, Figure 1). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the disclosure of Woo to include the teachings of Aielli. The rationale to combine the teachings would be a transaction to solve latency inherent in sending multiple links..
24. Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woo [KR-20190051366-A] in view of Pessin [US Patent No. 7,590,595 B2], in view of Aielli et al. [US Pub No. 2017/0161807 A1], and further in view of Katz et al. [US Pub 2004/0068462 A1] and further in view of Hoffman et al. [US Pub 2007/0156535 A1].
26. Regarding claims 5 and 13, Woo does not disclose however McGovern teaches wherein in response to the second trader node desiring to change the conditions of the executed asset transaction or cancel the executed asset transaction, a notification is provided to the first trader node (0024-0026, claim 1). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the disclosure of Woo to include the teachings of Hoffman. The rationale to combine the teachings would be to ensure reliable cancellation to address transaction integrity.
27. Regarding claims 6 and 14, Woo does not disclose however McGovern teaches wherein the change of the conditions of the executed asset transaction or the cancellation of the executed asset transaction by the second trader node is confirmed in response to a consent of the first trader node (0024-0026, claim 1). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the disclosure of Woo to include the teachings of Hoffman. The rationale to combine the teachings would be to ensure reliable cancellation to address transaction integrity.
28. Regarding claims 7 and 15, Woo does not disclose however McGovern teaches wherein the second trader node is capable of changing conditions of the asset transaction corresponding to the asset transaction request information and transmitting the asset transaction request information back to the first trader node (0024-0026, claim 1). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the disclosure of Woo to include the teachings of Hoffman. The rationale to combine the teachings would be to ensure reliable cancellation to address transaction integrity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 19, 2026