Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed on 25 June 2024. Claim 1 is currently pending. The rejections are as stated 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for managing and matching financial orders from two groups of users (internal and external users).
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent method claim 1, recites the limitations of receiving a plurality of orders for an item associated with a plurality of internal users; receiving a plurality of orders for the item associated with a plurality of external users; determining a best bid and a best offer from the plurality of the orders from the plurality of internal users and the plurality of the external orders; and causing screen to be displayed comprising a shared order book for the item that comprises a listing of the orders from the plurality of internal users and the plurality of external users sorted based at least by price, the shared order book arranged in a set of bid side columns and a set of ask side columns, each of the set of columns comprising at least one price column and at least one size column, and at least one column indicating a source of at least one of each of an order from an internal user and an order for an external user. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via transactional activities/interactions (such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people), but for the recitation of generic computer components, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations are directed to an abstract idea because they are commercial or legal interactions or sales activities (matching financial orders from two groups of users to determine best bid/offer). If a claim limitation covers fundamental economic concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of internal users computing devices, external users computing devices, an interface screen and a user computing device to perform the steps. The processor in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification ¶¶ 0052-0054). This generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a server (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the server at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claim 1.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lupien et al. (US 5101353 A), hereinafter “Lupien”.
Regarding claim 1, Lupien discloses a computer implemented method comprising: receiving a plurality of orders for an item from computing devices associated with a plurality of internal users; receiving a plurality of orders for the item from computing devices associated with a plurality of external users; determining a best bid and a best offer from the plurality of the orders from the plurality of internal users and the plurality of the external orders; and causing an interface screen to be displayed at a user computing device, the interface screen comprising a shared order book for the item that comprises a listing of the orders from the plurality of internal users and the plurality of external users sorted based at least by price, the shared order book arranged in a set of bid side columns and a set of ask side columns, each of the set of columns comprising at least one price column and at least one size column, and at least one column indicating a source of at least one of each of an order from an internal user and an order for an external user (figures 2 and 8, and column 13, line 57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kemp, II et al. US 6766304 B2 discloses a “method and system for reducing the time it takes for a trader to place a trade when electronically trading on an exchange, thus increasing the likelihood that the trader will have orders filled at desirable prices and quantities. The "Mercury" display and trading method of the present invention ensure fast and accurate execution of trades by displaying market depth on a vertical or horizontal plane, which fluctuates logically up or down, left or right across the plane as the market prices fluctuates. This allows the trader to trade quickly and efficiently”. See figures 2-5.
Tupper et al. US 20030093362 A1 discloses a "system and method of confirming trades of financial instruments such as OTC derivatives is disclosed. The system includes a data interface which accepts data relating to a trade from both the trader and counter party. The data includes different data fields of differing importance. The system includes a matching engine which compares the submitted data and assigns the trade a status depending on which of the data fields match. The system allows a user to filter trades on their status and display the details relating to that trade. The system also allows a user to display the data fields and change the data fields in order to change the status of the trades. The system thus allows a user to electronically confirm a trade and also identify unmatched trades and the information necessary to reconcile such unmatched trades". See figure 5.
Friesen US 20050289042 A1 discloses “methods and apparatus for creating and displaying a market for auctions. Many users who are connected by a network may participate in a number of different types of simultaneous auctions using a computer or some other terminal or other appliance”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights