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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-28 are pending in this application.
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-28 are directed to a system, or method, mean-plus, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 15 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claims 1 and 2 and mean-plus claim 28. Claim 15 recites the limitations of detecting pattern of current trading that match past (undesirable) patterns, and prevent a trade if the patterns matched.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Detecting matched transaction pattern that indicates a particular state of market place will reoccur; when pattern is matched, prevent the processing of the transaction thereby prevent the reoccurrence of the state of market place; and when pattern is not matched, allow the processing of the transaction, – specifically, the claim recites:
“monitoring… transactions received… and detect when a most recent of the monitored received transactions, in combination with one or more prior received of the monitored received transactions, match a pattern of two or more subsets of transactions, which indicate that a particular state of the electronic market place would reoccur, of data previously stored… representative of at least a subset of incoming transactions previously received over a specified prior period of time and processed in the order of receipt… which cumulatively resulted in a prior occurrence of the particular state; and when the pattern is matched, preventing… processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction… and, thereby prevent reoccurrence of the particular state of the electronic marketplace based thereon; and when the identified pattern is not matched, allowing… processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a system”, “a logic component”, “a non-transitory memory”, “computer readable instructions”, and “an electronic marketplace”, in claim 1; and the additional technical element of “a processor” in claim 2, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 2, 15, and 28 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a system, a logic component, an electronic marketplace, and a processor; a storage unit such as a non-transitory memory; and software module and algorithm such as computer readable instructions. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 15, and 28 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 2, 15, and 28 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 2, 15, and 28 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of accumulate data indicative of received transactions in a memory coupled with the logic component, wherein the memory has a capacity to store a limited number of received transactions such that, after the capacity of the memory has been reached, as a new transaction is received, the data indicative thereof is stored in the memory in place of the data indicative of the oldest transaction stored therein; and compare, periodically, the currently accumulated data with the pattern to detect when at least a portion of the pattern occurs, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the logic component” and “the memory” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of the pattern comprises only those transactions which contributed to achieving the particular state, other transactions which did not contribute to the particular state being excluded, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of cause the processor to store the pattern in a pattern memory coupled with the processor, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the processor” and “a pattern memory” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of the pattern memory comprises a content addressable memory, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the pattern memory” and “a content addressable memory”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of cause the processor to generate and transmit a solicitation of a transaction whose receipt and processing by the electronic marketplace would disrupt occurrence of a detected pattern, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the processor” and “the electronic marketplace”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of to cause the processor to generate an alert when at least a portion of the pattern is detected, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of the particular state comprises one of a market crash, rate of price increase exceeding a first threshold, rate of price decrease exceeding a second threshold, or level of volatility exceeding a third threshold, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of the pattern is dynamically updated based on recent incoming transactions, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of one or more of the previously received incoming transactions comprise a synthetic transaction intended to result in a synthetic state of the electronic marketplace, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of the synthetic transactions comprise real transactions which have been modified prior to receipt, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of the pattern comprises one or more commonalities between two or more incoming transaction, a source from which an incoming transaction is received, a sequence of two or more types of incoming transactions, relative timing between two or more incoming transactions, or combinations thereof, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of the pattern comprises receipt of a first transaction followed by receipt of a second transaction within less than a threshold period of time, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of accumulating, by the processor, data indicative of subsequently received transactions in a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory has a capacity to store a limited number of received transactions such that, after the capacity of the memory has been reached, as a new transaction is received, the data indicative thereof is stored in the memory in place of the data indicative of the oldest transaction stored therein; and comparing, periodically by the processor, the currently accumulated data with the pattern to detect when at least a portion of the pattern occurs, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the processor” and “a memory” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 discloses the limitation of the pattern comprises only those transactions which contributed to achieving the particular state, other transactions which did not contribute to the particular state being excluded, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 discloses the limitation of storing, by the processor, the one or more patterns in a pattern memory coupled with the processor, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “the processor” and “a pattern memory” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 discloses the limitation of the pattern memory comprises a content addressable memory, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical elements “a content addressable memory” and “a pattern memory” are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 discloses the limitation of generating, by the processor, and transmitting a solicitation of a transaction whose receipt and processing by the electronic marketplace would disrupt occurrence of a detected pattern, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21 discloses the limitation of generating, by the processor, an alert when at least a portion of the patterns is detected, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 22 discloses the limitation of the particular state comprises one of a market crash, rate of price increase exceeding a first threshold, rate of price decrease exceeding a second threshold, or level of volatility exceeding a third threshold, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 23 discloses the limitation of dynamically updating, by the processor, the pattern based on recent incoming transactions, which further narrows the abstract idea. Note that the technical element “the processor” is recited at a high level of generality. It does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 24 discloses the limitation of one or more of the previously received incoming transactions comprise a synthetic transaction intended to result in a synthetic state of the electronic marketplace, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 25 discloses the limitation of the synthetic transactions comprise real transactions which have been modified prior to receipt, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 26 discloses the limitation of the pattern comprises one or more commonalities between two or more incoming transaction, a source from which an incoming transaction is received, a sequence of two or more types of incoming transactions, relative timing between two or more incoming transactions, or combinations thereof, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 27 discloses the limitation of the pattern comprises receipt of a first transaction followed by receipt of a second transaction within less than a threshold period of time, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-28 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
OR
(a) (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-15, 18, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner (4903201).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner teaches.
a system comprising: a logic component and a non-transitory memory coupled therewith having computer readable instructions stored therein configured to cause the logic component to
(C6, L33-35 “FIG. 11 is a partial flow chart of the trading system central processor illustrating the data flow required to process the received bids and offers”).
monitor transactions received by an electronic marketplace and detect when a most recent of the monitored received transactions, in combination with one or more prior received of the monitored received transactions, match a pattern of two or more subsets of transactions, which indicate that a particular state of the electronic market place would reoccur, of data previously stored in the memory representative of at least a subset of incoming transactions previously received over a specified prior period of time and processed in an order of receipt by the electronic marketplace which cumulatively resulted in a prior occurrence of the particular state; and
(“C5, L5-30 (22) said system comprising a trading system for receiving buyer bids and seller offers on a particular commodity contract from said remote terminals and automatically completing a transaction of matching bids and offers, a clearing system for establishing requirements and regulations to be observed on said buy and sell transactions, means coupling said clearing system to said trading system for determining the validity of each transaction by comparing said transaction to said requirements and regulations, a compliance system for establishing predetermined criteria necessary to detect… trade patterns which would adversely affect said commodity market and means coupling said compliance system to said trading system and said clearance system for automatically comparing said transaction to said predetermined criteria thereby enabling detection… trade patterns which would adversely affect said commodity market”).
when the pattern is matched, prevent processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace and, thereby prevent reoccurrence of the particular state of the electronic marketplace based thereon; and when the identified pattern is not matched, allow processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace.
First the examiner notes that the phrase “thereby prevent reoccurrence of the particular state of the electronic marketplace based thereon” can be considered to be “intended use”, which is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) and should be revised to be positively stated. In examining the claims, the examiner has provided the mapping for the elements as follow:
(“C5, L31-61 (23) clearing system to said trading system for approving execution of a transaction only when said transaction falls within said predetermined constraints, executing the buy and sell transaction of said commodity having its offer and bid matched and approved by said clearing system forming a compliance system for establishing predetermined criteria necessary to detect illegal trade practices, coupling said compliance system to said trading system and said clearing system for detecting any illegal trade practices as indicated by said predetermined criteria, and confirming the execution of the transaction immediately to both buyer and seller whose bid and offer is matched”).
Claim 2 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Wagner discloses
wherein the computer readable instructions are further configured to cause the processor to store the pattern in a pattern memory coupled with the processor
(C6, L13-18 “FIG. 6 is a diagrammatic representation of the memory storage circuits of the host or central computer in the trading system for storing the bids or offers by time, price and quantity and for updating the price field in the memory when a new high or new low price is submitted”).
Regarding claim 8, Wagner discloses
wherein the computer readable instructions are further configured to cause the processor to generate an alert when at least a portion of the pattern is detected
(“C18-L49, C19-L10 (62) The input to compliance system 44 on line 626 is received from the trading system 12. Since the compliance system is intended to ensure that no manipulations of the market are occurring, it receives all order and trade related data at input unit 628 and sorts the data by major category such as the trader, clearing member, contract, price and time of buy or sell. That information is coupled to memory 630 on line 632 for storage and thus a standard file is built up by major category for retrieval or analysis. If for any reason any of that information needs to be checked to ensure that no irregularities are occurring in the market, the requested data is entered through a keyboard of inquiry/control terminal 50 and the information is either displayed or printed as an output at 634... Also, it can notify staff of the aging of complaints through the printer 634 and monitor any responses from the staff”).
(“C4-L60, C5-L2 (20) The present system provides a means of executing trades, validating the information, and notifying parties of pertinent changes without bias to those who participate”).
Regarding claim 9, Wagner discloses
wherein the particular state comprises one of a market crash, rate of price increase exceeding a first threshold, rate of price decrease exceeding a second threshold, or level of volatility exceeding a third threshold
(“C5, L5-30 (22) a compliance system for establishing predetermined criteria necessary to detect... trade patterns which would adversely affect said commodity market and means coupling said compliance system to said trading system and said clearance system for automatically comparing said transaction to said predetermined criteria thereby enabling detection... trade patterns which would adversely affect said commodity market”).
Regarding claim 10, Wagner discloses
wherein the pattern is dynamically updated based on recent incoming transactions
(C6, L13-18 “FIG. 6 is a diagrammatic representation of the memory storage circuits of the host or central computer in the trading system for storing the bids or offers by time, price and quantity and for updating the price field in the memory when a new high or new low price is submitted”).
(“C9, L22-41 (16) Block 94 of the compliance system 44 relates to special programs which may be maintained for special problems which are to be monitored for compliance. In addition, block 96 of compliance system 44 represents a monitor for patterns to enable detection of trading irregularities, transfer of positions, cross trades and the like. Also, as represented by block 98, the financial condition of each member is maintained and a warning of a dangerous financial condition of a member is provided for monitoring purposes. This history of record of the members' financial positions as traders is recorded as represented by block 100 for monitoring by exchange officers. In addition, block 102 represents the position of the traders relative to their net worth and thus enables the trade exchange officers to analyze the risk involved in allowing a trader to operate in the system under certain limits which are set. Finally, block 104 represents a check list of certain factors relating to each trade exchange member to assure that they are in compliance with the regulations established by the exchange”).
Regarding claim 11, Wagner discloses
wherein one or more of the previously received incoming transactions comprise a synthetic transaction intended to result in a synthetic state of the electronic marketplace
(“C3, L4-15 (11) The present invention, the automated futures trade exchange, has created an entire automated process for trading futures contracts which provides accurate and precise information, trading based on factual data, assurance of execution and immediate confirmation of the contracts, control through real time processing of information and electronic surveillance, and the use of computer hardware to implement the process. It does not separate clearing and surveillance from the futures trading process as do other exchanges because it is the combined process which allows the markets to function properly”).
(“C3, L16-38 (12) All trading conducted on the automated futures trading system will be effected through a central computer complex programmed to handle orders for the exchange's futures contracts. Access to this central computer will be available only through specially programmed remote computer terminals which will be distributed only to exchange members who will have a coded membership number. Each remote terminal will consist of a keyboard, a printer, on-line storage and a video monitor, the latter displaying a variety of information regarding the futures contracts traded on the exchange. Members will be able to utilize these terminals to transmit to the central computer bids and offers for their own accounts as principals or for the accounts of customers for whom they are agents. However, the system does not allow direct negotiations between members of the exchange as in the system disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,573,747. Instead, the system acts as an intermediary among members and matches bids and offers and completes the transaction. Thus, the present novel system is an open outcry system since trading takes place in a central location in open view of a variety of participants”).
Regarding claim 12, Wagner discloses
wherein the synthetic transactions comprise real transactions which have been modified prior to receipt.
(The examiner notes that “real transactions” is not specifically defined by the specification. The closest terminology found in the specification is “real order” see para 85; but, an “order” is not a “transaction” – just as an “offer” is not a “contract”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “real transactions” can be a synthetic transaction because synthetic transactions are real events transacted by real people/institutions, with real consideration given. In examining the claims, the examiner has provided the mapping for the elements as follow:
(“C3, L4-15 (11) The present invention, the automated futures trade exchange, has created an entire automated process for trading futures contracts which provides accurate and precise information, trading based on factual data, assurance of execution and immediate confirmation of the contracts, control through real time processing of information and electronic surveillance, and the use of computer hardware to implement the process. It does not separate clearing and surveillance from the futures trading process as do other exchanges because it is the combined process which allows the markets to function properly”).
(“C3, L16-38 (12) All trading conducted on the automated futures trading system will be effected through a central computer complex programmed to handle orders for the exchange's futures contracts. Access to this central computer will be available only through specially programmed remote computer terminals which will be distributed only to exchange members who will have a coded membership number. Each remote terminal will consist of a keyboard, a printer, on-line storage and a video monitor, the latter displaying a variety of information regarding the futures contracts traded on the exchange. Members will be able to utilize these terminals to transmit to the central computer bids and offers for their own accounts as principals or for the accounts of customers for whom they are agents. However, the system does not allow direct negotiations between members of the exchange as in the system disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,573,747. Instead, the system acts as an intermediary among members and matches bids and offers and completes the transaction. Thus, the present novel system is an open outcry system since trading takes place in a central location in open view of a variety of participants”).
Regarding claim 13, Wagner discloses
wherein the pattern comprises one or more commonalities between two or more incoming transaction, a source from which an incoming transaction is received, a sequence of two or more types of incoming transactions, relative timing between two or more incoming transactions, or combinations thereof
(“C9, L22-41 (16) Block 94 of the compliance system 44 relates to special programs which may be maintained for special problems which are to be monitored for compliance. In addition, block 96 of compliance system 44 represents a monitor for patterns to enable detection of trading irregularities, transfer of positions, cross trades and the like. Also, as represented by block 98, the financial condition of each member is maintained and a warning of a dangerous financial condition of a member is provided for monitoring purposes. This history of record of the members' financial positions as traders is recorded as represented by block 100 for monitoring by exchange officers. In addition, block 102 represents the position of the traders relative to their net worth and thus enables the trade exchange officers to analyze the risk involved in allowing a trader to operate in the system under certain limits which are set. Finally, block 104 represents a check list of certain factors relating to each trade exchange member to assure that they are in compliance with the regulations established by the exchange”).
(“C18-L49, C19-L10 (62) The input to compliance system 44 on line 626 is received from the trading system 12… it receives all order and trade related data at input unit 628 and sorts the data by major category such as the trader, clearing member, contract, price and time of buy or sell. That information is coupled to memory 630 on line 632 for storage and thus a standard file is built up by major category for retrieval or analysis”).
Regarding claim 14, Wagner discloses
where the pattern comprises receipt of a first transaction followed by receipt of a second transaction within less than a threshold period of time
(The examiner notes that “threshold period of time” is not specifically defined by the specification. In examining the claims, the examiner has provided the mapping for the elements as follow:
(“C9, L22-41 (16) Block 94 of the compliance system 44 relates to special programs which may be maintained for special problems which are to be monitored for compliance. In addition, block 96 of compliance system 44 represents a monitor for patterns to enable detection of trading irregularities, transfer of positions, cross trades and the like. Also, as represented by block 98, the financial condition of each member is maintained and a warning of a dangerous financial condition of a member is provided for monitoring purposes. This history of record of the members' financial positions as traders is recorded as represented by block 100 for monitoring by exchange officers. In addition, block 102 represents the position of the traders relative to their net worth and thus enables the trade exchange officers to analyze the risk involved in allowing a trader to operate in the system under certain limits which are set. Finally, block 104 represents a check list of certain factors relating to each trade exchange member to assure that they are in compliance with the regulations established by the exchange”).
(“C18-L49, C19-L10 (62) The input to compliance system 44 on line 626 is received from the trading system 12… it receives all order and trade related data at input unit 628 and sorts the data by major category such as the trader, clearing member, contract, price and time of buy or sell. That information is coupled to memory 630 on line 632 for storage and thus a standard file is built up by major category for retrieval or analysis”).
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 21 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 22 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 23 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 24 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 25 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 12.
Claim 26 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 13.
Claim 27 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 28 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Faulkner, John (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17609150/replacing-old-content-of-a-text-file-with-new-content-when-we-write-the-file-sec; Page 1-3; 7/12/2013).
Regarding claim 3, Wagner does not disclose, however, Faulkner teaches
wherein the computer readable instructions are further configured to cause the processor to: accumulate data indicative of received transactions in a memory coupled with the logic component, wherein the memory has a capacity to store a limited number of received transactions such that, after the capacity of the memory has been reached, as a new transaction is received, the data indicative thereof is stored in the memory in place of the data indicative of the oldest transaction stored therein; and compare, periodically, the currently accumulated data with the pattern to detect when at least a portion of the pattern occurs
(“the new data to overwrite the older version… the default is to overwrite”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wagner to include wherein the computer readable instructions are further configured to cause the processor to: accumulate data indicative of received transactions in a memory coupled with the logic component, wherein the memory has a capacity to store a limited number of received transactions such that, after the capacity of the memory has been reached, as a new transaction is received, the data indicative thereof is stored in the memory in place of the data indicative of the oldest transaction stored therein; and compare, periodically, the currently accumulated data with the pattern to detect when at least a portion of the pattern occurs as taught by Faulkner to overwriting old data with the new data when storage is full.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Cox, Nick (statistics - What are the efficient and accurate algorithms to exclude outliers from a set of data? - Stack Overflow, page 1-2, July 8, 2013).
Regarding claim 4, Wagner does not disclose, however, Cox teaches
wherein the pattern comprises only those transactions which contributed to achieving the particular state, other transactions which did not contribute to the particular state being excluded
(“I want to carry out some statistical analysis, but before that I want to exclude outliers… 1. Keep all the data, and just use robust statistics (median instead of mean, Wilcoxon test instead of T-test, etc.). Probably good if your dataset is large. 2. Trim or Winsorize your data. Trimming means removing the top and bottom x%. Winsorizing means setting the top and bottom x% to the xth and 1-xth percentile value respectively. 3. If you have a small dataset, you could just plot your data and examine it manually for implausible values. 4. If your data looks reasonably close to normally distributed (no heavy tails and roughly symmetric), then use the instead of the standard deviation as your test statistic and filter to 3 or 4 median absolute deviations away from the median”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wagner to include wherein the pattern comprises only those transactions which contributed to achieving the particular state, other transactions which did not contribute to the particular state being excluded as taught by Cox to exclude outlier data from analysis to improve efficiency and accuracy.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Pagiamtzis, Kostas (https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/ Page 1, paragraph 2, June 25, 2007).
Regarding claim 6, Wagner does not disclose, however, Pagiamtzis teaches
wherein the pattern memory comprises a content addressable memory
(“see Page 1, paragraph 2: Content-addressable memories (CAMs) are hardware search engines that are much faster than algorithmic approaches for search-intensive applications… added comparison circuitry that enable a search operation to complete in a single clock cycle. The two most common search-intensive tasks that use CAMs are packet forwarding and packet classification in Internet routers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wagner to include wherein the pattern memory comprises a content addressable memory as taught by Pagiamtzis to use content-addressable memories for faster searching by using comparison circuitry that enable a search operation to complete in a single clock cycle – see Page 1, paragraph 2. “Content-addressable memories (CAMs) are hardware search engines that are much faster than algorithmic approaches for search-intensive applications… added comparison circuitry that enable a search operation to complete in a single clock cycle. The two most common search-intensive tasks that use CAMs are packet forwarding and packet classification in Internet routers”.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Beattie, Andrew (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/when_to_sell.asp, page 1-2 34/30/07).
Regarding claim 7, Wagner does not disclose, however, Beattie teaches
wherein the computer readable instructions are further configured to cause the processor to generate and transmit a solicitation of a transaction whose receipt and processing by the electronic marketplace would disrupt occurrence of a detected pattern
(“The most common reason is to adjust your portfolio. There are many reasons that a portfolio might become unbalanced or inappropriate for your investing goals”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wagner to include wherein the computer readable instructions are further configured to cause the processor to generate and transmit a solicitation of a transaction whose receipt and processing by the electronic marketplace would disrupt occurrence of a detected pattern as taught by Beattie to buy/sell asset (soliciting opposing sell/buy) to meet personal criteria – see page 3, para 2 “Selling an investment is like buying one - you have to make sure it is in line with your investing goals”.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 U.S.C. § 101… (citing August 4, 2025 Memorandum from Charles Kim, Deputy Commissioner for Patents, to Technology Centers 2100, 2600 and 3600 re: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, pages 3-5… The current claims recite limitations relating to the monitoring of received transactions in combination with previously received transactions to detect patterns which would indicate that system state would reoccur and preventing processing of the received transaction to prevent reoccurrence of that system state. Accordingly, while the claims may involve a judicial exception, they do not recite a judicial exception and are therefore eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The analysis cited in the Memorandum is not applicable here. The claimed invention is clearly using “generic computer” to carry out the abstract idea of detecting pattern of current trading that match past (undesirable) patterns, and prevent a trade if the patterns matched. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the disclosed systems and methods are directed to the functions of reproducing any particular marketplace state which is the cumulative result of the previously processed transactions which led to that that state. Applicants submit that this is an improvement in the technical field of financial transaction processing and system state management,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited “functions of reproducing any particular marketplace state which is the cumulative result of the previously processed transactions which led to that that state” is accomplished by detecting matched transaction pattern that indicates a particular state of market place will reoccur. This is not a technical innovation. It is a business idea.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the disclosed systems and methods are a specific implementation that is directed to monitoring transactions received by an electronic marketplace and detecting when a most recent of the monitored received transactions, in combination with one or more prior received of the monitored received transactions, match a pattern of two or more subsets of transactions, which indicate that a particular state of the electronic market place would reoccur, of data previously stored in the memory representative of at least a subset of incoming transactions previously received over a specified prior period of time and processed in an order of receipt by the electronic marketplace which cumulatively resulted in a prior occurrence of the particular state; and when the pattern is matched, preventing processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace and, thereby prevent reoccurrence of the particular state of the electronic marketplace based thereon; and when the identified pattern is not matched, allowing processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, this is not a technical innovation. It is a business/abstract idea – similar to seeing a pattern of events that reminds one of past events that led to undesirable outcomes.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision dated April 19, 2019, in Appeal No. 2017-007390… the present claims are not identical to those of Application Serial No. 14/074,667,… Applicants note that, similar to the claims of Application Serial No. 14/074,667 where the Examiner was reversed … Accordingly, the claims do not relate to an abstract idea, but even if so, are integrated into a practical application … This is not a business solution as asserted by the Examiner (emphasis examiner’s),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. As admitted by the applicant, the present claims are not the same as those of application 14/074,667 allowed by the PTAB. In ‘667, PTAB determined that “the recited judicial exception… is integrated into a practical application of that exception under Step 2A(ii)” specifically, because “the functions of reproducing any particular marketplace state which is the product, i.e. cumulative result, of the previously processed transactions which led to that state is an improvement in the technical field of financial transaction processing and simulation… the claim's additional elements integrate this fundamental economic practice into a practical application and reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. By sequentially processing financial transaction data in the manner recited in claim 11, the particular state of an electronic marketplace is reproduced by obtaining the reproduced prior state of the electronic marketplace through sequential processing of previously received financial transaction data using subsets of data "representative of only the plurality of previously received transactions the sequential processing of which would cumulatively result in the particular prior state of the electronic marketplace to be reproduced," and based on an indication of a particular prior state of the electronic marketplace to be reproduced. These limitations therefore integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations reflect a technological improvement and use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking the idea to a particular environment (emphasis examiner’s),”
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Contrary to the assertions by the Examiner, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. As explained above, the claims are NOT directed to data modification and financial transaction simulation. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a fundamental economic practice,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed at analyzing trade patterns – to decide whether to allow more trading. This is clearly about trading. Trading is part of fundamental economic practice of commerce.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the claims do represent an improvement to the technology surrounding electronic transaction processing systems which implement electronic marketplaces, and an improvement to the technical field surrounding such electronic transaction processing systems,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no technological improvement disclosed by the claims. The claimed invention is not improving the cited “logic component”, or “non-transitory memory”, or “processor”.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“(after reciting the steps cited in the claim)… The combination of steps recited show that the steps impose meaningful limits that allow for detection of reoccurrence of the state of an electronic marketplace via the matching of patterns as claimed. Thus, the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited steps are part of a business procedure/model. And the improvement – if any – is due to the business procedure/idea being implemented. It is not due to any technological improvement.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The claims are not directed to an abstract idea,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the abstract idea of detecting pattern of current trading that match past (undesirable) patterns, and prevent a trade if the patterns matched. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The claims do not describe a fundamental economic practice… (reciting the steps cited in the claim)… Applicants submit that the claims do not recite a fundamental economic concept or commercial and legal interaction,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the claims are directed at analyzing trade patterns – to decide whether to allow more trading. Trading is part of fundamental economic practice of daily commerce.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the claims are not abstract as the claims are integrated into a practical application of the exception… Applicants again refer to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decision dated April 19, 2019, in Appeal No. 2017-007390 (Application Serial No. 14/074,667)… (reciting PTAB’s language in the decision)… these limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the present claims are not the same as those of application 14/074,667 allowed by the PTAB. In ‘667, PTAB determined that “the recited judicial exception… is integrated into a practical application of that exception under Step 2A(ii)” specifically, because “the functions of reproducing any particular marketplace state which is the product, i.e. cumulative result, of the previously processed transactions which led to that state is an improvement in the technical field of financial transaction processing and simulation… the claim's additional elements integrate this fundamental economic practice into a practical application and reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. By sequentially processing financial transaction data in the manner recited in claim 11, the particular state of an electronic marketplace is reproduced by obtaining the reproduced prior state of the electronic marketplace through sequential processing of previously received financial transaction data using subsets of data "representative of only the plurality of previously received transactions the sequential processing of which would cumulatively result in the particular prior state of the electronic marketplace to be reproduced," and based on an indication of a particular prior state of the electronic marketplace to be reproduced. These limitations therefore integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations reflect a technological improvement and use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking the idea to a particular environment (emphasis examiner’s),”
In response to applicant's argument that:
“claims recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the exception itself and that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field… Furthermore, these claim limitations are neither a routine nor conventional activity previously known in the industry but are instead meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment,”
the examiner respectfully notes that the office action did not raise the issue of whether anything is “well-understood, routine or conventional”. Rather, the examiner has determined that the claims’ technical elements amount to nothing more than “generic computers”, used in such a way that it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully refers the applicant to the discussion above on the abstract idea determination and the technical specific elements. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Example 5 referencing DDR Holdings, LLC v Hotels.com,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is not the same as Example 5. Detecting pattern of current trading that match past (undesirable) patterns, and prevent a trade if the patterns matched is not the same as correcting the distortion of image’s color and spatial properties by creating a based information from a primary device (e.g. a digital camera) and supplementing the information by using a secondary device (e.g. a printer) where the color and spatial data are process in an image processor using known mathematical techniques (e.g. Fourier analysis to yield a Wiener Noise Power Spectrum). The claimed invention does not have the elements and the steps recited in Example 5. One must read Example 5 narrowly in deference to the Alice Court’s emphatic prohibition against patenting abstract ideas that lack genuine innovation beyond the use of generic computers. Implementing a business process/idea by processing data using generic computers is not patentable.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“MPEP § 2106.05 (d) entitled "Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-10.2019]", (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) which dictates how the Examiner should properly address and support an assertion that the claims do not provide "something more," so as to address each and every element of Applicants claim to show that the claimed limitations, in the claimed combination, were well understood, routine or conventional,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) states that there are “a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept.” It recites limitations that “the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more"”, these include:
1. “adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (emphasis examiner’s);”
2. “Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”;
3. “Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception”
“or (emphasis examiner’s);”
4. “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”
Note that each item in the list, by itself, can be determinative in the "significantly more" analysis. See the use of the “or” conjunction. Furthermore, MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) also states that “the list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting” (emphasis examiner’s).
Again, the examiner has determined that the claims’ technical elements amount to nothing more than “generic computers”, used in such a way that it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully refers the applicant to the discussion above on the abstract idea determination and the technical specific elements.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Applicants submit that neither Wagner, Faulkner, Cox, Pagiamtzis, or Beattie teaches "a logic component and a non-transitory memory coupled therewith having computer readable instructions stored therein configured to cause the logic component to: monitor transactions received by an electronic marketplace and detect when a most recent of the monitored received transactions, in combination with one or more prior received of the monitored received transactions, match a pattern of two or more subsets of transactions, which indicate that a particular state of the electronic market place would reoccur, of data previously stored in the memory representative of at least a subset of incoming transactions previously received over a specified prior period of time and processed in an order of receipt by the electronic marketplace which cumulatively resulted in a prior occurrence of the particular state; and when the pattern is matched, prevent processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace and, thereby prevent reoccurrence of the particular state of the electronic marketplace based thereon; and when the identified pattern is not matched, allow processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace" as claimed in claim 1, and similarly claimed in claims 2, 15 and 28,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Rather than repeating the entire 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) analysis here, the examiner respectfully directs the applicant to the detail prior art rejection/analysis above. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2) above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Applicants submit that Wagner fails to at least disclose detecting " ... when a most recent of the monitored received transactions, in combination with one or more prior received of the monitored received transactions, match a pattern of two or more subsets of transactions, which indicate that a particular state of the electronic market place would reoccur, of data previously stored in the memory representative of at least a subset of incoming transactions previously received over a specified prior period of time and processed in an order of receipt by the electronic marketplace which cumulatively resulted in a prior occurrence of the particular state; and when the pattern is matched, prevent processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace and, thereby prevent reoccurrence of the particular state of the electronic marketplace based thereon; and when the identified pattern is not matched, allow processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace" as claimed in claim I and similarly in claims 2, 15, and 28,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, rather than repeating the entire 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) analysis here, the examiner respectfully directs the applicant to the detail prior art rejection/analysis above. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2) above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“In particular, nowhere in Wagner is it taught or suggested specifically to "detect when a most recent of the monitored received transactions, in combination with one or more prior received of the monitored received transactions, match a pattern of two or more subsets of transactions, which indicate that a particular state of the electronic market place would reoccur, of data previously stored in the memory representative of at least a subset of incoming transactions previously received over a specified prior period of time and processed in an order of receipt by the electronic marketplace which cumulatively resulted in a prior occurrence of the particular state; and when the pattern is matched, prevent processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace and, thereby prevent reoccurrence of the particular state of the electronic marketplace based thereon; and when the identified pattern is not matched, allow processing of the most recent of the monitored received transaction by the electronic marketplace" as claimed in claim 1 and similarly in claims 2, 15, and 28,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Rather than repeating the entire 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) analysis here, the examiner respectfully directs the applicant to the detail prior art rejection/analysis above. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2) above.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Applicant submits that, at a minimum, Wagner fails to teach or suggest monitoring most recently received transactions in combination with one or more prior received transactions to detect when that combination matches a pattern of two or more subsets of transactions, which indicate that a particular state of the electronic market place would reoccur, of data previously stored in the memory representative of at least a subset of incoming transactions previously received over a specified prior period of time and processed in an order of receipt by the electronic marketplace which cumulatively resulted in a prior occurrence of the particular state as claimed (emphasis examiner’s),”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Wagner teaches a system that compares the transaction to the criteria to detect trade pattern that would adversely affect the market – see “C5, L5-30 (22) said system comprising a trading system for receiving buyer bids and seller offers on a particular commodity contract from said remote terminals and automatically completing a transaction of matching bids and offers, a clearing system for establishing requirements and regulations to be observed on said buy and sell transactions, means coupling said clearing system to said trading system for determining the validity of each transaction by comparing said transaction to said requirements and regulations, a compliance system for establishing predetermined criteria necessary to detect… trade patterns which would adversely affect said commodity market and means coupling said compliance system to said trading system and said clearance system for automatically comparing said transaction to said predetermined criteria thereby enabling detection… trade patterns which would adversely affect said commodity market”.
Conclusion
Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -5pm.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights