Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 12/9/2025.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 2-20 are newly added.
Therefore, 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1-20 are directed to an apparatus, a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “receive the trading order from a trader; identify a decay rule stored in the trading order, in which the decay rule is associated with at least one of the trader and the trading product, and in which the decay rule specifies at least two of a decay rate, a time interval, and a decay quantity; receive a counterorder for another particular quantity of the trading product; determine that the counterorder matches the trading order; determine that the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero; replenish the displayed quantity of the trading order with a portion of the reserved quantity of the trading order, in which a remaining portion of the reserved quantity is left over after replenishing the displayed quantity; determine that the remaining portion of the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero; and reduce the remaining portion of the reserved quantity in accordance with the decay rule, in which any replenishing of the displayed quantity of the trading order occurs independently of reducing the remaining portion of the reserved quantity in accordance with the decay rule”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities, business relations, i.e. organizing the quantity of a product in a trading order in anticipation of a trade, a pre-sale activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed apparatus of a memory and a processor that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “store…a trading order; receive… the trading order; identify… a decay rule; disclose… the displayed quantity of the trading order; not transmitting …the reserved quantity…; receive …a counterorder of the trading product; determine… that the counterorder matches the trading order; fill… the displayed quantity of the trading order; determine… the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero; replenish… the displayed quantity of the trading order; determine… the remaining portion of the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero; and reduce… the remaining portion of the reserved quantity in accordance with the decay rule…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the memory and the processor that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “store…a trading order; receive… the trading order; identify… a decay rule; disclose… the displayed quantity of the trading order; not transmitting (prevent) …the reserved quantity…; receive …a counterorder of the trading product; determine… that the counterorder matches the trading order; fill… the displayed quantity of the trading order; determine… the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero; replenish… the displayed quantity of the trading order; determine… the remaining portion of the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero; and reduce… the remaining portion of the reserved quantity in accordance with the decay rule…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are dependent on claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 8 and 15. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor included in the dependent claims 4, 5, 14, 18 and 19 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “determining… that the time interval after a first time has expired…; and reducing… the reserved quantity in accordance with the decay rate…” (claims 4 and 18); “determining…that the time interval after the first time has expired; and determining… whether the remaining portion of the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero…” (claims 5 and 19); and “increasing… the variable decay rate; and reducing… the remaining portion of the reserved quantity by a second quantity upon an expiration of a successive time interval after the time interval…” (claim 14), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor included in the dependent claims 4, 5, 14, 18 and 19 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “determining… that the time interval after a first time has expired…; and reducing… the reserved quantity in accordance with the decay rate…” (claims 4 and 18); “determining…that the time interval after the first time has expired; and determining… whether the remaining portion of the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero…” (claims 5 and 19); and “increasing… the variable decay rate; and reducing… the remaining portion of the reserved quantity by a second quantity upon an expiration of a successive time interval after the time interval…” (claim 14), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the current application is rejected as unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,747,498.
Both claims 1, 8 and 15 of the present application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,747,498 are directed to a method and a system related to receive and organize a trading order comprising a displayed quantity and a reserved quantity. Thus, claims 1, 8 and 15 of the current application teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,747,498. However, claims 1, 8 and 15 of the present application also contains additional limitations not found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,747,498 of the instant application, such as the limitation “prevent transmission about the reserved quantity to the one or more market centers”. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 of the current application is directed to a species of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,747,498 (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)).
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-20 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued that: “…Claim 1, and new independent claims 8 and 15 are now directed to a specific technological operation, "prevent transmission about the reserved quantity to the one or more marketing centers", that are integrated into a practical application…” (Please see the remarks on pages 9-10).
Answer: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Office has explained above that the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed apparatus of a memory and a processor that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “store…a trading order; receive… the trading order; identify… a decay rule; disclose… the displayed quantity of the trading order; not transmitting (prevent transmission)…the reserved quantity…; receive …a counterorder of the trading product; determine… that the counterorder matches the trading order; fill… the displayed quantity of the trading order; determine… the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero; replenish… the displayed quantity of the trading order; determine… the remaining portion of the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero; and reduce… the remaining portion of the reserved quantity in accordance with the decay rule…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the claim performs the functions of nothing more than “storing, receiving the trading order, identifying the decay rule, disclose the display quantity of the trading order, not transmitting the reserved quantity, determining, fill, replenishing and reducing” the reserved and displayed quantity of the trading order. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 1. Thus, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the memory and the processor that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “store…a trading order; receive… the trading order; identify… a decay rule; disclose… the displayed quantity of the trading order; not transmitting (prevent transmission)…the reserved quantity…; receive …a counterorder of the trading product; determine… that the counterorder matches the trading order; fill… the displayed quantity of the trading order; determine… the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero; replenish… the displayed quantity of the trading order; determine… the remaining portion of the reserved quantity of the trading order is greater than zero; and reduce… the remaining portion of the reserved quantity in accordance with the decay rule…”, which when viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Rather, these functions are improvements in a business/financial problem to a business/financial solution in how to process and organize the portions of the quantity of a trading order so that “the trading system may thereby reduce certain risks associated with market volatility. In particular, by causing the reserved quantity to decay, the trading system may reduce the trader's risk of having exposure for a stale trading order with a price that is no longer favorable for the trader” (please see the Applicant’s specification in paragraph 87). Thus, there is no improvements of computer related technology in the Applicant’s claims (see Applicant’s remarks on pages 9-10). In other words, more details of the 'abstract idea' is not going to be "significantly more" than the 'abstract idea' because even though, the specific combination of features may be a narrow abstract idea, it still is an abstract idea. Please see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which stated that in "defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303".
Therefore, claim 1, and new independent claims 8 and 15 are not directed to a specific technological operation and the claims are not integrated into a practical application…” (Please see the remarks on pages 9-10).
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
Previous Double Patenting
Per Applicant’s requested, the Double Patenting rejection will be held in abeyance until the Application is otherwise in a condition for allowance, at which time Applicant may provide a terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694