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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on July 8, 2026.
Claim 1, 13, and 20 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 8, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s request to defer the requirement for a Terminal Disclaimer, Examiner has decided to maintain the double patenting rejection along with the requirement for a Terminal Disclaimer until the requested Terminal Disclaimer has been submitted to the record.
Applicant argued that amended claim 1 does not fall under the judicial exception. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed invention, and particularly claim 1, recites a mental process, and the additional limitations of a processor and memory are merely tools to implement the judicial exception. For instance, the functional limitations of detecting an alert and determining a current status of a trading order from the order log are examples of mental processes, or concepts performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, detecting an alert and determining a current status are tasks that can be perform by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Performing the operations in real time across electronic networks would require the aid of a computer, as stated by Applicant. However, the computer would merely serve as a tool and would not affect the abstract nature of the identified judicial exception. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the claimed invention integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The additional limitations that accompany the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the memory and processor are merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment. Any improved functioning of the trading system derives from the abstract idea itself and not from its combination with the additional computer components. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the amended claim recited a specific mechanism of detecting a network failure and providing a fallback communication to redundant devices based on certain criteria. Examiner disagrees. The specific mechanism of detecting a network failure was recited in the amended claim as “detect an alert associated with the first client device”, which is the identified abstract idea. The limitation to provide a fallback communication to redundant devices is also a part of the abstract idea. These limitations are not examples of hedging, pricing, settlement rules, or a trading strategy. However, they are nonetheless abstract because they are a part of a mental process which includes observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. The additional elements of computer components merely serve to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claimed invention. Examiner disagrees. The novelty and non-obviousness of the claimed invention are not considered when determining patent eligibility. The lack of prior art that teaches or suggests the claimed invention does not indicate that the claimed invention necessarily must overcome any 101 rejection. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,112,372. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, and 6 of US Patent No. 12,112,372 teach or suggest claim 1. See the following tables for a comparison of the claims:
App #18/825058 (claim 1)
US Pat. No. 12,112,372 (claims 1, 4, and 6)
a memory operable to:
a memory; (claim 1)
store a plurality of trader profiles, wherein a particular trader profile is associated with a particular trader and comprises: an order log including entries for trading orders submitted by the particular trader; first contact data associated with a first client device; and second contact data associated with a second client device; trader preferences including conditions, criteria, and/or strategies that the particular trader deem relevant to participation in the trading system;
designate, for each trader, at least two devices having unique addresses for communicating between the trading system and the trader, wherein a first of the at least two devices is utilized by the trading system for communication of trading commands and a second of the at least two devices is utilized by the trading system for communication of an alert message relating to communications failures: (claim 1)
wherein addresses of the first and second client devices are distinct from one another;
…designate, for each trader, at least two devices having unique addresses… (claim 1)
store at least one trading order associated with the particular trader;
maintain an order log of status of all orders received from the first of the at least two devices; (claim 1)
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and operable to:
at least one processor to: (claim 1)
detect an alert associated with the first client device; and
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect that a network connection between the first of the at least two devices and the trading system has been terminated. (claim 4)
in conjunction with detecting the alert: determine a current status of the at least one trading order from the order log, including at least one of: pending, partially executed, executed, canceled, and a position of the trading order;
determine the at least one first market condition: (claim 6)
generate a status message regarding the determined status; and
generate at least one alert message when the determined at least one first market condition deviates from the at least one first metric; and (claim 6)
transmit the status message to the address of the second client device based on the trader profile.
transmit the at least one alert message to the second of the at least two devices. (claim 6)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[a system for error detection in a trading network, comprising: a memory operable to:]
store a plurality of trader profiles, wherein a particular trader profile is associated with a particular trader and comprises: first contact data associated with a first client device; and second contact data associated with a second client device; and
store at least one trading order associated with the particular trader;
[a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and operable to:]
detect an alert associated with the first client device; and
in conjunction with detecting the alert: determine a current status of the at least one trading order;
generate a status message regarding the determined status; and
transmit the status message to the second client device, wherein the transmission is based at least in part on the second contact data.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The memory and processor in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a memory and a processor. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Examiner’s Statement of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of allowable subject matter. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Demirjian (WO 01/18714 A2), Ordish (US 5,727,165), and Silverman (US 6,260,025) do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Demirjian teaches a transaction and account management system. Ordish teaches an offer matching system having timed match acknowledgement. Silverman teaches a distributed matching system for displaying a book of credit filtered bids and offers. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious limitations to “detect an alert associated with the first client device; and in conjunction with detecting the alert: determine a current status of the at least one trading order; generate a status message regarding the determined status; and transmit the status message to the address of the second client device”, as described by independent claim 1. Similar limitations are found in independent claims 13 and 20.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Fuhrer (US 6,105,005) discloses a system for enhanced financial trading support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
September 8, 2026
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
