DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is in reply to the arguments/remarks for Application 18/797,626 filed on 27 February 2026.
Claim 12 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.§ 101 as allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
1. Applicant further argues that the filtering to hinder potential manipulation is a service similar to the filtering discussed by the Federal Circuit in BASCOM (one not possible without the use of the computing devices), and therefore "reflect an improvement to [a] technical field" and thus integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the rejected claims do not adhere to the same fact pattern seen in BASCOM case cited.
In the decision regarding BASCOM, while the court agreed that the additional elements were generic computer, network, and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more when considered individually, when combined, an inventive concept was found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user (note that the term “inventive concept” is often used by the courts to describe additional element(s) that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as a “processor”, “remote device”, “network”, represent the use of a computer as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of applying rules and/or instructions in order to facilitate performing price determination activity associated with an economic/financial (trading) transaction in an automated manner.
The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner routinely and conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally applying the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method.
In the instant application, there is no actual improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed. There are no actual improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and there are no meaningful limitations beyond generally applying the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
2. Applicant further argues that the Office Action has not shown that the above-quoted elements of claim 1, as currently amended, are "well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regard to the factual evidence requirements under the Berkheimer standard, no argument and/or reasoning has been made by Examiner construing the rejection of the claims as being based on the elements being well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Therefore the requiring of evidentiary support is not an issue and rendered moot. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
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 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, representative claim 1 is directed towards determining an index associated with a financial trading instrument (e.g., binary option) in an automated manner. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of applying rules and/or instructions in order to facilitate performing price determination activity (binary options index) associated with an economic/financial (trading) transaction, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; following set of instructions; following rules or instructions) as well as mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, groupings, in step 2A prong one, inasmuch as the claimed method as a whole is directed towards facilitating performing a computation (mathematical calculation), but for the recitation of computer-related components.
Claim 1 recites:
“receiving, via a processor, a plurality of bids and offers for a binary options instrument, in which each bid and offer comprises a quantity and a price;
determining, via a processor, that one of the received bids and offers is potentially manipulative;
applying, via a processor, a rule to the plurality of bids and offers to generate a subset of bids and offers, wherein the rule comprises excluding the potentially manipulative bid or offer from the subset;
computing, via a processor, a binary options index from the subset of bids and offers; and
receiving, from a remote device, a request for a binary options transaction that is based on the computed binary options index, in which the remote device and the processor are in electronic communication over a network;
wherein the rule further comprises:
randomly selecting one of the plurality of bids and offers; and
excluding the randomly selected bid or offer from the subset”.
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Performing price determination/analysis activities associated with an economic/financial transaction relates and/or is akin to existing fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts including the following of a set of rules/instructions that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, whereas but for the computer device language, the limitations recited in the context of the claim encompasses the performance of mathematical activity.
Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer device – nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions and mathematical activity groupings.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the claim such as a “processor”, “remote device”, “network”, represent the use of a computer as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of applying rules and/or instructions in order to facilitate performing price determination activity associated with an economic/financial (trading) transaction in an automated manner.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of applying rules and/or instructions in order to facilitate performing price determination activity associated with an economic/financial (trading) transaction in an automate manner using computer technology (e.g. “processor”, “remote device”, “network”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 14 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a computer readable medium (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 14 accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-11, and 13 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Speth et al., US 2013/0246305
Labsuzewski et al., US 2012/0254062
Cheng et al., US 8,630,938
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692