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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/9/2026 has been entered.
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, 5-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
According to Applicants specification (Para. 189 & Fig. 10), a “health indicator” is a displayed as a category on a user interface.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 1 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 21 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations that are denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 1 and 21 recite a computer system for on-demand margin borrowing and lending comprising a plurality of nodes representing electronic devices, each node comprising: a memory storing historical trading data and instructions for different computing applications for on-demand margin borrowing and lending for a plurality of customer accounts, each customer account being a unified trading account; a hardware processor executing instructions to provide a margin processor configured to provide margin operations for the plurality of customer accounts for on-demand margin lending, on-demand margin borrowing, and interest charges, wherein the margin processor: determines that the customer account is operating in a margin mode to use assets on-demand for trading activities, wherein the computer system uses assets in the customer account as collateral for the trading activities, upon determining that the customer account is operating in the margin mode, computes a collateral rating, using a plurality of collateral parameters, for the assets in the customer account used as collateral for the trading activities, wherein the collateral rating is adapted to change proportionally with a value of the assets in the customer account, wherein different types of the assets in the customer account are clustered into tiers for defining associated collateral ratings; continuously computes a margin value for the customer account based on the collateral rating for the assets in the customer account used as collateral for the trading activities, wherein the collateral rating reflects a quality of the assets in the customer account based on a statistical analysis of historical trading data to determine, for each type of the assets in the customer account, a quality rating for a respective type of the asset in the customer account as an assessment of volatility or market risk of the asset in the customer account and an ability to liquidate the asset in the customer account based on collateral value decretion or drawdown effects from liquidation simulations on the asset in the customer account, sets one or more margin requirements for the customer account, and continuously compares the margin value for the customer account to the margin requirements to evaluate risk for the customer account; continuously computes a health indicator for the customer account based on the margin value and the margin requirements, the health indicator corresponding to one or more permitted actions for the customer account, and executes code to control activities for the customer account using the one or more permitted actions corresponding to the health indicator for the customer account; upon determining that the margin value for the customer account does not meet the margin requirements for the customer account, updates the one or more permitted actions for the customer account; controls the trading activities for the customer account operating in the margin mode using the one or more margin requirements; upon receiving a request for an activity for a customer account, verifies the one or more permitted actions corresponding to the health indicator for the customer account before implementing the requested activity; upon determining that the requested activity is not include in the one or more permitted actions corresponding to the health indicator for the customer account, rejects the request for the activity for the customer account; modifies one or more of the trading activities based on changes in the continuously computed margin value; and automatically implements one or more of the modified trading activities for the customer account operating in the margin mode based on the continuously computed margin value for the customer account; executes a margin transaction between the borrower interface and the lender interface, the margin transaction being smart contract code for a blockchain infrastructure; and a margin interface that displays one or more visual elements corresponding to at least a portion of the margin value for the customer account operating in the margin mode and the health indicator for the customer account, and updates the one or more visual elements as the margin value and the health indicator are continuously computed, wherein the margin interface further comprises a margin toggle configured to activate or deactivate the margin mode and a margin data panel comprising information about a current state of the customer account and an expected state of the customer account after performing a trading activity, and a liquidation engine configured to process automatic de-leveraging of a subaccount and automatically liquidate assets in the subaccount when a leverage threshold value of the subaccount is above a safety threshold value, wherein the safety threshold value is a configurable value, and wherein the automatic de- leveraging prevents additional risk from being added and automatically unwinds positions when the leverage threshold value exceeds the safety threshold value, stopping when the safety threshold value is no longer exceeded. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, and mathematical relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve placing an order based on market information. Also, the clams are commercial interactions, such as business relations, as well as managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer system, memory, hardware processor, instructions, computing applications, margin processor, liquidation engine, plurality of nodes, each node, blockchain infrastructure, smart contract code, borrower interface, lender interface, margin mode, margin interface, health indicator, health indicator for a customer account, activate or deactivate the margin mode and a margin data panel, and a margin data panel. The additional elements of a computer system, memory, hardware processor, instructions, computing applications, margin processor, liquidation engine, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of borrower interface, lender interface, margin mode, margin interface, health indicator, health indicator for a customer account, activate or deactivate the margin mode and a margin data panel, and a margin data panel are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of plurality of nodes, each node, blockchain infrastructure, and smart contract code are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next 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 with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (computer system, memory, hardware processor, instructions, computing applications, margin processor, liquidation engine, plurality of nodes, each node, blockchain infrastructure, smart contract code, borrower interface, lender interface, margin mode, margin interface, health indicator, health indicator for a customer account, activate or deactivate the margin mode and a margin data panel, and a margin data panel) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s and blockchain to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUIs and blockchain to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. 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 claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 5 recites wherein the margin processor computes the collateral rating for the assets in the customer account used as collateral for the trading activities by discounting a normalized value of all types of assets in the customer account by a rating reflective of a quality measure of the assets in the customer account, wherein a higher quality asset will have a higher rating and lower haircut, and a lower quality asset will have a lower rating and higher haircut. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system and margin processor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein the margin processor computes the collateral rating for the assets in the customer account as collateral value - haircut, wherein the collateral value is a normalized value of the assets in the customer account and a haircut reflects a quality measure of the assets in the customer account, wherein a higher rating reflects a lower haircut, and a lower rating reflects a higher haircut. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system and margin processor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein the margin processor computes the margin value for the customer account as: margin = (collateral value - haircut) +futures pnl - debt. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, as well as considered a mathematical equation (abstract idea), and the additional elements of the computer system and margin processor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites further comprising a dispatcher, a matcher, a marginer, a market maker, and an accountant engine to implement one or more of the trading activities for the customer account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the dispatcher, a matcher, a marginer, a market maker, and an accountant engine are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the margin processor: enables margin trading on a subaccount; sets margin requirements for the subaccount; processes a loan request to buy or sell an asset from a borrower interface; processes a loan offer to generate returns from idle assets from a lender interface; determines rates for assets in the customer account; and computes different types of margin data, and generate output for transmission, storage or display at the margin interface. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system and margin processor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra. Further, the interfaces (borrower interface, lender interface, and margin interface) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Also, the blockchain infrastructure are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of blockchain (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished.
Claim 10 recites wherein the margin processor is further configured to automatically update the one or more visual elements of the interface using output data relating to a margin transaction, the one or more visual elements indicating a risk value for the margin transaction and the margin requirements for a subaccount. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system, margin processor and visual elements are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra. Further, the interfaces (margin interface and visual elements) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of graphical user interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and the claim fails to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished.
Claim 12 recites, wherein the safety threshold value is at least one of: a default value; and an adaptive value configured by the computer system in response to continuously computing the margin value. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 13 recites further configured to set a liquidation price of an asset held in the subaccount. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein output data relating to a margin transaction includes an impact of a planned margin transaction, wherein the impact of the planned margin transaction is determined by the margin processor and the impact of the planned action is at least one of: additional assets that will be borrowed as a result of the planned margin transaction; a total of the additional assets that will be borrowed as a result of the planned margin transaction; an asset price at which a user will lose control of the subaccount as a result of the planned margin transaction; an expected leverage of the subaccount as a result of the planned margin transaction; expected fees as a result of the planned margin transaction; and an expected notional as a result of the planned margin transaction. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system, margin processor and liquidation engine are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 15 recites wherein the margin processor is further configured to automatically process repayment of at least one loan of the subaccount by selling idle assets of the subaccount, wherein the margin processor is configured to determine the at least one loan by calculating the at least one loan with the highest loan rate, wherein the margin processor is further configured to automatically process a repayment of the at least one loan of the subaccount at a regular interval. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system and margin processor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 17 recites wherein the margin processor is further configured to process loan return data and loan capacity data for at least one of: an individual loan offer; and an aggregate of loan offers. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system and margin processor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein the margin processor uses open order collateral assets in the subaccount for cross-collateralization, wherein the margin processor is further configured to set a leverage characterization status of the subaccount, the margin processor processing a current leverage value of the subaccount and a leverage threshold value of the subaccount to set the leverage characterization. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system and margin processor are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein the health indicator comprises a status selected from the group of healthy, monitor, danger, critical, and suspended. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer system and health indicator are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 22 recites a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform the method of claim 21. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 21, and the additional elements of the computing device and medium addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 21 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 21, supra.
Claim 23 recites wherein the system compares a current leverage value of the subaccount to a leverage threshold value of the subaccount and generates output data for a leverage characterization to automatically update the interface. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the system and interface are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are not abstract. Examiner disagrees. the claim limitations are methods of organizing human activity. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve placing an order based on market information. Also, the clams are commercial interactions, such as business relations, as well as managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. The currently recited limitations involve trading. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points. First, not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a certain "method of organizing human activity"), In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. The term "fundamental" is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"); In re Greenstein, 774 Fed. Appx. 661, 664, 2019 USPQ2d 212400 (Fed Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (claims to a new method of allocating returns to different investors in an investment fund was a fundamental economic concept). However, being old or well-known may indicate that the practice is fundamental. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 219-20, 110 USPQ2d 1981-82 (2014) (describing the concept of intermediated settlement, like the risk hedging in Bilski, to be a "‘fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce’" and also as "a building block of the modern economy") (citation omitted); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (claims to the concept of hedging are a "fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class.") (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1356 (2016) ("The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’").
An example of a case identifying a claim as reciting a fundamental economic practice is Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 609, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1009 (2010). The fundamental economic practice at issue was hedging or protecting against risk. The applicant in Bilski claimed "a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk," i.e., how to protect against risk. 561 U.S. at 599, 95 USPQ2d at 1005. The method allowed energy suppliers and consumers to minimize the risks resulting from fluctuations in market demand for energy. The Supreme Court determined that hedging is "fundamental economic practice" and therefore is an "unpatentable abstract idea." 561 U.S. at 611-12, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
Another example of a case identifying a claim as reciting a fundamental economic practice is Bancorp Services., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The fundamental economic practice at issue in Bancorp pertained to insurance. The patentee in Bancorp claimed methods and systems for managing a life insurance policy on behalf of a policy holder, which comprised steps including generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities, calculating surrender value protected investment credits for the life insurance policy; determining an investment value and a value of the underlying securities for the current day; and calculating a policy value and a policy unit value for the current day. 687 F.3d at 1270-71, 103 USPQ2d at 1427. The court described the claims as an "attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of [managing a stable value protected life insurance policy] and then instruct the use of well-known [calculations] to help establish some of the inputs into the equation." 687 F.3d at 1278, 103 USPQ2d at 1433 (alterations in original) (citing Bilski). Other examples of "fundamental economic principles or practices" include: i. mitigating settlement risk, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982 (2014); and vii. placing an order based on displayed market information, Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
"Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.
An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108.
The sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)”, which “is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity.” 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640.
An example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing games”, which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claim limitations are integrated into a practical application, and the system implements automated deleveraging using a configurable safety threshold. Examiner disagrees. The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, the claims were found eligible as they reflected improvements to the functioning of a computer, i.e. a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In Finjan, the claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” were found to provide greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Lastly, the claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims solve margin borrowing and lending, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights