DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 18/785,579, was filed on 07/26/2024, and claims priority from Provisional Application 63/516,295, filed 07/28/2023.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 07/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1 and 18 are independent.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2024 has been considered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
Based on the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
In regards to Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, independent claims 1 and 18 are method claims.
For the sake of compact prosecution, we continue with the Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?”
In regards to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the abstract idea elements recited in independent claim 1 and 18 and in dependent claims 2 and 19 are shown in italic font. (The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in italic and underlined font):
In regards to claim 1,
1. A method for creating a target price indicator on a graph of historical price values, the method comprising:
accessing a set of historical price values, each of the historical price values associated with a time period;
determining an upside target by calculating from the historical price values
a price low level (L) based on at least one price unit (U) below a previous recent low price point; and
an initial thrust (t) based on a number of price units that a price moves higher from the price low level (L), without reversing (r) by at least a user-configurable number of price units;
in response to a price of the historical price values being reversed (r) by the user-configurable number of price units
setting an initial thrust (t) and a resultant price move to a target price; and
calculating a target price level (T) by a configurable target price factor (F) multiplied by the initial thrust (t);
in response to price of the historical price values increasing to a level that is at least one price unit (U) greater than a local maximum price value of the initial thrust (t) for a resultant price target to be activated, automatically calculating a target price indicator, with
an initial point of the target price indicator starting at a point of activation price unit;
a slope of the target price indicator is based on the target price level (T) and a time to target (x); and
presenting, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the calculated target price indicator with the set of historical values on a first axis versus the time period on a second axis.
In regards to claim 2,
2. The method of Claim 1, further comprising
presenting, via the GUI, an alert that the target price has been activated;
in response to receiving a single user action, automatically populating a trading order using the historical price values once the target price has been activated; and
sending the trading order to an electron exchange for execution.
In regards to claim 18,
18. A method for creating a target price indicator on a graph of historical price values, the method comprising:
accessing a set of historical price values, each of the historical price values associated with a time period;
determining a downside target by calculating from the historical price values
a price high level (H) based on at least one price unit (U) above a previous recent high price point; and
an initial thrust (t) based on a number of price units that a price moves lower from the price high level (H), without reversing (r) by at least a user-configurable number of price units;
in response to a price of the historical price values being reversed (r) by the user configurable number of price units;
setting an initial thrust (t) and a resultant price move to a target price; and
calculating a target price level (T) by a configurable target price factor (F) multiplied by the initial thrust (t);
in response to price of the historical price values decreasing to a level that is at least one price unit (U) less than a local minimum price value of the initial thrust (t) for a resultant price target to be activated, automatically calculating a target price indicator, with
an initial point of the target price indicator starting at a point of activation price unit;
a slope of the target price indicator is based on the target price level (T) and a time to target (x); and
presenting, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the calculated target price indicator with the set of historical values on a first axis versus the time period on a second axis.
In regards to claim 19,
19. The method of Claim 18, further comprising
presenting, via the GUI, an alert that the target price has been activated;
in response to receiving a single user action, automatically populating a trading order using the historical price values once the target price has been activated; and
sending the trading order to an electron exchange for execution.
More specifically, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea: “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“the calculated target price indicator with the set of historical values on a first axis versus the time period on a second axis”.
“in response to receiving a single user action, automatically populating a trading order using the historical price values once the target price has been activated”.
Moreover, claims 1-20 recite “Mathematical Concepts", specifically “Mathematical Relationships”, “Mathematical Formulas or Equations”, and “Mathematical Calculations”, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) Part (IV), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The mathematical elements in claim 1 include:
1. A method for creating a target price indicator on a graph of historical price values, the method comprising:
accessing a set of historical price values, each of the historical price values associated with a time period;
determining an upside target by calculating from the historical price values
a price low level (L) based on at least one price unit (U) below a previous recent low price point; and
an initial thrust (t) based on a number of price units that a price moves higher from the price low level (L), without reversing (r) by at least a user-configurable number of price units;
in response to a price of the historical price values being reversed (r) by the user-configurable number of price units
setting an initial thrust (t) and a resultant price move to a target price; and
calculating a target price level (T) by a configurable target price factor (F) multiplied by the initial thrust (t);
in response to price of the historical price values increasing to a level that is at least one price unit (U) greater than a local maximum price value of the initial thrust (t) for a resultant price target to be activated, automatically calculating a target price indicator, with
an initial point of the target price indicator starting at a point of activation price unit;
a slope of the target price indicator is based on the target price level (T) and a time to target (x); and
presenting, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the calculated target price indicator with the set of historical values on a first axis versus the time period on a second axis.
The mathematical elements in claim 18 include:
18. A method for creating a target price indicator on a graph of historical price values, the method comprising:
accessing a set of historical price values, each of the historical price values associated with a time period;
determining a downside target by calculating from the historical price values
a price high level (H) based on at least one price unit (U) above a previous recent high price point; and
an initial thrust (t) based on a number of price units that a price moves lower from the price high level (H), without reversing (r) by at least a user-configurable number of price units;
in response to a price of the historical price values being reversed (r) by the user configurable number of price units;
setting an initial thrust (t) and a resultant price move to a target price; and
calculating a target price level (T) by a configurable target price factor (F) multiplied by the initial thrust (t);
in response to price of the historical price values decreasing to a level that is at least one price unit (U) less than a local minimum price value of the initial thrust (t) for a resultant price target to be activated, automatically calculating a target price indicator, with
an initial point of the target price indicator starting at a point of activation price unit;
a slope of the target price indicator is based on the target price level (T) and a time to target (x); and
presenting, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the calculated target price indicator with the set of historical values on a first axis versus the time period on a second axis.
The “additional elements” include: “a graphical user interface (GUI)”.
Moreover, “additional extra-solution elements” include: “accessing a set of historical price values”, “presenting, via a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “presenting, via the GUI, an alert that the target price has been activated”, and “sending the trading order to an electron exchange for execution”.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
In regards to Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements (“a graphical user interface (GUI)”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“accessing a set of historical price values”, “presenting, via a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “presenting, via the GUI, an alert that the target price has been activated”, and “sending the trading order to an electron exchange for execution”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity;
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
In regards to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" (“a graphical user interface (GUI)”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“accessing a set of historical price values”, “presenting, via a graphical user interface (GUI)”, “presenting, via the GUI, an alert that the target price has been activated”, and “sending the trading order to an electron exchange for execution”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “accessing” and “sending” steps, see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to the “presenting”/“displaying” steps, see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Holding that the claimed menu graphic user interface is an abstract idea under 35 USC §101, because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claims the resulting systems").
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
All other dependent claims are also rejected, because they merely further define the abstract idea, as discussed in the following paragraphs.
In regards to dependent claim 3, the mathematical elements are:
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the target price indicator is one of a line, an arrow, a shape, a geometric shape, or a combination thereof.
In regards to dependent claim 4, the mathematical elements are:
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein a slope of the target price indicator is based on the configurable target price factor (F) multiplied by the initial thrust (t) divided by the time to target (x), and wherein the time to target (x) is from the point of activation which occurs when at least one price unit (U) is reached above a high point of the initial thrust (t), and wherein a value of the time to target (x) is settable by a user.
In regards to dependent claim 5, the mathematical elements are:
5. The method of Claim 1, wherein a slope of the target price indicator is based on the time to target (x) at a same angle as a slope angle of the initial thrust (t), and wherein the time to target (x) is from the point of activation which occurs when at least one price unit (U) is reached above a high point of the initial thrust (t), and wherein a value of the slope is settable by a user.
In regards to dependent claim 6, the mathematical elements are:
6. The method of Claim 1, wherein a slope of the target price indicator is based on the time to target (x) is a multiple of a user-configurable factor of time to activation (a), and wherein the time to target (x) is from the point of activation which occurs when at least one price unit (U) is reached above a high point of the initial thrust (t), and wherein a value of the time to target (x) is settable by a user.
In regards to dependent claim 7, the mathematical elements are:
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein a slope of the target price indicator is based on following prices as they occur as time progresses after that target price indicator is activated, such that the slope of the target price indicator adjusts according to prices as they occur.
In regards to dependent claim 8, the mathematical elements are:
8. The method of Claim 1, wherein a slope of the target price indicator is based on an arithmetic combination of previous slopes of previous target price indicators, a number of previous target price indicators are is settable by a user.
In regards to dependent claim 9, the mathematical elements are:
9. The method of Claim 1, wherein the reversal (r) by at least a user-configurable number of price units is one of an arithmetic price unit (U) or a percentage price unit (U) of price.
In regards to dependent claim 10, the mathematical elements are:
10. The method of Claim 1, wherein the time period is one of minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years or a combination thereof.
In regards to dependent claim 11, the mathematical elements are:
11. The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
presenting, via the GUI, an activation region, which is a geometric shape with a first dimension based on the price unit (U) and a second dimension based on a time to activation (a).
In regards to dependent claim 12, the mathematical elements are:
12. The method of Claim 1, wherein the target price level (T) is equal to
T=L+t+(Fxt)
where the L is the price low level, t is the initial thrust, and F is the configurable target price factor.
In regards to dependent claim 13, the mathematical elements are:
13. The method of Claim 9, wherein an initial value for F is one of 1, 1.618, 2, and 2 at log scale.
In regards to dependent claim 14, the mathematical elements are:
14. The method of Claim 10, wherein the price unit (U) is an arithmetic value or percentage value of the price (P).
In regards to dependent claim 15, the mathematical elements are:
15. The method of Claim 1, wherein a slope of the target price indicator is based on following a price of the historical price values as it progresses to the target price.
In regards to dependent claim 16, the mathematical elements are:
16. The method of Claim 1, further comprising receiving user-input to change a value of reversing (r) units
the configurable target price factor (F); or
a combination thereof.
In regards to dependent claim 17, the commercial or legal interactions elements are:
17. The method of Claim 1, wherein the historical price values are market prices for one of stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, futures, or any other instrument that is traded as in bought and/or sold over a given period of time.
In regards to dependent claim 20, the mathematical elements are:
20. The method of Claim 18, wherein a slope of the target price indicator is based on the configurable target price factor (F) multiplied by the initial thrust (t) divided by the time to target (x), and wherein the time to target (x) is from the point of activation which occurs when at least one price unit (U) is reached above a high point of the initial thrust (t), and wherein a value of the time to target (x) is settable by a user.
Conclusion
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Christine Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103 or at christine.behncke@uspto.gov. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
March 7, 2026