DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 02/17/2026. Claims 2-21 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 2-8 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 9-15 are directed to a nontangible computer readable medium (i.e., machine), and claims 16-21 are directed to a system (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 2:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 2 recites the at least following limitations of “… displaying, … associated with a tradeable object; displaying, …, a flexible price-volume indicator aligned with a first value level; generating, …, a rule associated with the flexible price-volume indicator for the first value level, wherein the rule specifies a state for the flexible price-volume indicator based on market data for the tradeable object and a time period; monitoring, … market data for the tradeable object for the first.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for displaying a flexible price-volume indicator in a differentiated state in response to a change in the market data). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 2 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a trading device”, “a processor”, “a trading application”, “a trading interface”, and “a value axis”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a trading device”, “a processor”, “a trading application”, “a trading interface”, and “a value axis” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 9:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 9 recites the at least following limitations of “… display …, a plurality of value levels arranged to … determined according to market data for a tradeable object; display, …, a flexible price- volume indicator aligned with a first value level; generate, …, a rule associated with the flexible price-volume indicator for the first value level, wherein the rule specifies a state for the flexible price-volume indicator based on market data for the tradeable object and a time period; monitor, by the … market data for the tradeable object for the first value level display, …, the flexible price-volume indicator in a differentiated state to reflect a change in a quantity value determined from analyzing the rule according to monitoring the market data for the first value level and the time period; receive, …, a user input to reset the time period; and display, …, the flexible price-volume indicator in a second differentiated state to reflect a second quantity value determined from analyzing the rule according to monitoring the market data for the first value level and the reset time period.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for displaying a flexible price-volume indicator in a differentiated state in response to a change in the market data). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 9 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a processor”, “a trading application”, “a value axis”, and “a trading interface”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor”, “a trading application”, “a value axis”, and “a trading interface” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 16:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 16 recites the at least following limitations of “… display, … a plurality of level, wherein the rule specifies a state for the flexible price-volume indicator based on market data for the tradeable object and a time period; monitor, … market data for the tradeable object for the first value level display, …, the flexible price-volume indicator in a differentiated state to reflect a change in a quantity value determined from analyzing the rule according to monitoring the market data for the first value level and the time period; receive, …, a user input to reset the time period; and display, …, the flexible price-volume indicator in a second differentiated state to reflect a second quantity value determined from analyzing the rule according to monitoring the market data for the first value level and the reset time period.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for displaying a flexible price-volume indicator in a differentiated state in response to a change in the market data). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 16 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a trading device”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “a trading application”, and “a trading interface”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a trading device”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “a trading application”, and “a trading interface” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., displaying a plurality of flexible price-volume indicators; and updating each flexible price-volume indicator of the plurality of flexible price- volume indicators aligned with a respective selected value level in value axis), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claims 2, 9, 16. Thus, the dependent claim do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18: simply provide further definition to “the quantity value” recited in independent claims 2, 9, 16. Simply stating that where the quantity value includes at least one of: a volume of the tradeable object traded at the first value level aligned with the flexible price-volume indicator, a quantity value determined based on historical market data, or a quantity value determined based on market data received from an electronic exchange. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 5 and 12: simply provide further definition to “updating the flexible price-volume indicator” recited in independent claims 2 and 9. Simply stating that where updating the flexible price-volume indicator includes updating at least one of a color, a pattern, and a shading. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 19: simply provide further definition to “the flexible price- volume indicator” recited in independent claims 2, 9, 16. Simply stating that where the flexible price- volume indicator includes alphanumeric data and a graphical indicator. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 20: simply provide further definition to “the differentiated state” recited in independent claims 2, 9, 16. Simply stating that where the differentiated state reflects a change in the market data corresponding to a market condition including at least one of: an inside market, a last traded price, or a largest traded quantity in a period of time. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 8, 15, and 21: simply provide further definition to “the differentiated state of the price-volume indicator” recited in independent claims 2, 9, 16. Simply stating that where the differentiated state of the flexible price-volume indicator includes at least one of: a change in color; an addition of a pattern to the price-volume indicator; inclusion of an animation as part of the flexible price-volume indicator, or inclusion of an addition of an alphanumeric value as part of the flexible price-volume indicator. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
6. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 2-21 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that the Applicant now turns to the rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Applicant respectfully disagrees that the examined claims were directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Office Action at page 3 asserted that the examined claims recited an abstract idea because they allegedly covered "performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for displaying a flexible price-volume indicator in a differentiated state in response to a change in the market data)." The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Applicant respectfully submits that mere use in a financially-related environment
does not make anything, much less the examined claims, necessarily directed to an abstract idea such as certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, when a person uses an improved cellular phone to call their stock broker to sell a stock, the cellular phone is not transformed into an ineligible device simply because it was used in "commercial interactions" including "sales activities". Further, the Applicant respectfully submits that, contrary to the assertion in the Office Action, no feature of the examined claims recited "commercial interactions" or "sales activities." In particular, no performance of any commercial interaction or sale was recited in the examined claims. The Applicant respectfully submits that the mere presence of financially-related concepts in the claims simply does not mean that the claims are necessarily directed to such activities. However, to expedite prosecution, the Applicant has amended the pending claims to more clearly recite that they are directed to statutory subject matter. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-2).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that independent claim 2, 9, and 16 at issue recite limitations as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities for displaying a flexible price-volume indicator in a differentiated state in response to a change in the market data). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 2-21 in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
9. The best prior art of record, Singer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,558,754), hereinafter, “Singer”, and Luo (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0017259), hereinafter, “Luo”, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the at least instant application claim limitations of "generating, by the trading application, a rule associated with the flexible price-volume indicator for the first value level, wherein the rule specifies a state for the flexible price-volume indicator based on market data for the tradeable object and a time period; monitoring, by the trading application market data for the tradeable object for the first value level displaying, by the trading application via the trading interface, the flexible price-volume indicator in a differentiated state to reflect a change in a quantity value determined from analyzing the rule according to monitoring the market data for the first value level and the time period; receiving, by the trading application via the trading interface, a user input to reset the time period; and displaying, by the trading application via the trading interface, the flexible price-volume indicator in a second differentiated state to reflect a second quantity value determined from analyzing the rule according to monitoring the market data for the first value level and the reset time period.” 2DOCKET No. 2012.07.038.MC0 (SAMS12-00554) APPLICATION NO. 13/758,303
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
10. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696