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 . Claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 14-22, and 24-28 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 (Non-Statutory Subject Matter)
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 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim, especially claim 19, is directed to a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a home page for display by a computer, i.e., software per se or an intangible computer-generated interface, rather than a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. To the extend the claim encompasses the displayed TFA file information itself, it also encompasses data/information per se.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 (Abstract Idea)
Claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 14-22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 14-18, and 24-28 are to a system (i.e., a machine), thereby passing Step 1. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
(For purposes of compact prosecution, claims 19-22, which don’t pass Step 1 since they are directed to non-statutory subject matter, have been considered in the Abstract Idea rejection below.)
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 19 is:
[providing] a view of a plurality of trade finance agreement (TFA) files:
[identifying and displaying] summary data for the deal;
[alerting] the user to a total number of TFA files from the plurality of TFA files for which the user has a responsibility; and
[characterizing] TFA deals for which TFA ID cards are displayed and [partitioning] into a plurality of sectors, each sector representing a different particular value that the ID feature may assume;
wherein a sector is selectable to filter to constrain retrieval and/or processing of the TFA files based on the selected sector.
The abstract idea of claim 28 is:
process for each of a plurality of TFA types procedural histories of a plurality of TFAs of the TFA type to:
parse execution of the TFA type into a plurality of stages;
determine for each stage a set of TFA forms to be filled out to complete the stage;
determine for each stage at least one collaboration network associated with populating fields comprised in the set of TFA forms;
determine a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs) characterizing the TFA type and/or the stages, wherein the KPIs comprise at least one KPI and an associated standard deviation (STD) that provides a measure of communications bandwidth associated with executing TFAs of the TFA type and/or the stages;
generate a relational TFA database associating each of the plurality of TFA types with the stages, set of TFA forms, the at least one collaboration network, and KPIs and associated STDs determined for the TFA type;
in response to a request to initiate a given TFA of the plurality of TFAs to:
prioritize and schedule processing the TFA stages and forms for the given TFA based on the at least one communications bandwidth KPI and KPI STD associated with the given TFA in the relational database; and
[control] access to the prioritized schedule based on permissions associated with a collaboration network of the at least one collaboration network.
The abstract idea steps italicized above pertain to managing and facilitating trade finance agreements, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity. This is further supported by [0002]-[0004] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions for organizing and/or prioritizing completion of trade finance agreements, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0002]-[0004] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements: a graphical user interface (GUI) for display by a computer, the GUI comprising a home page; stored in a memory of a system that facilitates implementation of TFAs deals from which a user may select a TFA file to interact with; the home page configured to display; a TFA ID card for each of a plurality of TFA deals that the system facilitates; a responsibility alert radio button (RABUT); a header banner having wheel radio buttons each of which wheel radio button is associated with a different TFA ID feature; on the home page; the home page display; in the system memory.
Claim 28 recites the following additional elements: a processor; a memory storing the relational TFA database; access the relational database; a graphical user interface (GUI).
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [0035] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 3, 8, 11, 18, and 24-27 include additional abstract steps and/and information that further narrow the abstract idea above. This narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate it into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Dependent claims 6, 14-17 and 20-22, beyond any narrowing of the abstract idea, recite further additional elements (claim 6: wherein the software is configured to use a classifier; claim 14: wherein the processor is configured to automatically initialize the file; claim 15: wherein the processor is configured to provide a graphical user interface (GUI); claim 16: wherein the processor is configured to enable a plurality of authorized users to communicate with each other by text and/or voice to access and collaborate via the GUI; claim 17: wherein the processor is configured to enable the users to communicate in real-time; claim 20: wherein each wheel radio button; claim 21: cause the GUI to display a menu of selectable action items; claim 22: wherein the menu comprises an action item that causes the GUI to provide a display).
Similar to above, these are generic computing elements, claimed in a results-oriented manner, that merely facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea and are equivalent to “apply it.” Per MPEP 2106.05(f), whether viewed alone or in combination, these further additional elements do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 14-22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 4/16/26 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In view of applicant’s amendments, which incorporate claim language that was previously indicated as having no prior art applied, the previous rejections under 35 USC § 103 are withdrawn. With respect to new claim 28, the prior art does not teach or suggest determining a KPI and its standard deviation (STD) that provides a measure of communications bandwidth associated with executing TFAs of the TFA type and/or the stages, in combination with the additional limitations of the claim.
In an updated search, examiner considered the following additional references, which, while generally relevant to the field of endeavor, stop short of the specificity required by the claim:
US 20020107781, which teaches: [0002] This invention relates to electronic brokerage systems and in particular to systems in which counterparties trade anonymously within fixed credit limits. Such systems may trade financial instruments such as foreign exchange and forward rate agreements. The invention is particularly concerned with the handling of compound orders input into such systems. Compound orders may be multiple orders which are subject to a limit or condition or joint execution orders where a number of orders must all be executed or none at all.
US 20020133455, which teaches: [0014] An embodiment of the invention provides an anonymous trading system for trading financial or other instruments which include a communications network for transmitting electronic messages. A plurality of trader terminals are connected to the network, each can generate electronic price quotation messages which includes bid and/or offer prices and can communicate to the trader information from other trader terminals. One or more matching engines are connected to the network for matching bids and offers and, when a match is made, for executing deals. A market distribution means connected to the network distributes price messages to the trader terminals and is responsive to price quotation messages and the matching engines. Credit limit storage means store credit limits available for trades between a trading floor or group of trading floors and possible counterparty trading floors or groups of trading floors. The credit limit storage means includes at least one credit agent node which stores credit limits for a group of trading floors.
US 20100138333, which teaches: [0012] The invention also provides a computerised trading system for trading instruments between parties comprising: a plurality or order input devices for entering order information into the system, the order input devices including a plurality of trader input devices for inputting order from traders, and at least one broker order input device for trading on behalf of a plurality of clients; at least one matching engine connected to the network for matching bid and offer orders input into the system and for executing deals where orders are matched; and a market distributor for distributing order price messages to the order input devices, the market distributor being responsible to the order messages and the matching engine, wherein trades conducted between trader order input devices are anonymous as to the parties until completion of a trade, and trades to which the broker order input device is a party require disclosure of the parties to the trade prior to completion of the trade.
Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 USC § 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC § 101, applicant offers:
Applicant respectfully submits that new independent claim 28 is not directed to an abstract idea, but to a specific improvement in computer-implemented system for generating and executing multi-stage, multi-party procedures.
While claim 28 refers to the claimed system operating with respect to trade finance agreements (TFAs), claim 28 and its dependent claims are not directed to the business or agreement aspects of TFAs. Rather, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented mechanism for generating and using a structured relational representation of a procedural execution, (by way of example. of a TFA) to enable the system itself to control execution of the procedure.
As described, conventional systems (Fig. 1A) execute such procedures through ad hoc coordination between multiple entities, resulting in inefficient use of computing resources and unpredictable execution sequencing. In contrast, the claimed system (Fig. 1B): processes historical execution data of such procedures to: determine procedural stages for performing the procedures; associate each stage with corresponding data structures (e.g. forms); at least one collaboration network; determine performance metrics for the procedure and/or stages of the procedure; and generate a relational database encoding these interdependent features of the procedures.
In response to initiation of a new procedure the system accesses the relational database to access data associated with the procedure to: prioritize, schedule, and control execution of the procedure stages based on the performance metrics, including communication-related KPIs and associated STDs.
The claimed invention therefore changes how the computer system generates, stores, and utilizes structured data to control execution of a complex, distributed procedure, rather than merely automating a known workflow.
Accordingly, new claim 28 and its dependent claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality, consistent with Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., where claims directed to a specific improvement in data structures and their use were held not abstract.
Applicant further submits that even were claim 28 considered to recite an abstract idea the claim recites significantly more than the abstract idea and any judicial exception based on the abstract idea.
The claim recites a computer implemented system that performs a specific combination of operations for determining features characterizing a type of TFA and stages of the TFA. The characterizing features include among other KPIs, at least one KPI and an associated STD that provides a measure of communications bandwidth associated with executing TFAs and/or stages of the TFAs of the TFA type. In particular the system uses the at least one communications bandwidth KPI and KPI STD to prioritize and schedule processing TFA stages and forms for TFAs of the TFA type.
None of the cited prior art discloses determining a KPI and its STD that provide a measure of communications bandwidth for stage of a procedure and using the KPI to prioritize and schedule performance of stages of the procedure. In the absence of prior art disclosing the bandwidth KPI and the use of the KPI claimed in claim 28, the claim must be considered far from obvious and comprising at least one additional element that amounts to significantly more than any judicial exception that the claim might be alleged to be directed to.
In view of the above applicant submits that new independent claim 28, and by dependence claims dependent on claim 28, claim eligible subject matter.
Amended claim 19 is rewritten in independent form to claim an interactive GUI comprising a particular configuration of graphical elements recited in claim 19 before the current amendment and to claim the limitation that the elements may be operated to constrain retrieval and/or processing TFA files responsive to selecting a particular sector of a radio button.
Applicant submits that in the absence of any prior art applied to pre-amendment claim 19 and changes made to the claim in the current amendment that the claim is eligible and patentable.
While well taken, examiner’s unpersuaded by applicant’s remarks. Examiner first notes that MPEP 2106 is clear that novelty isn’t equivalent to eligibility. Indeed, applicant may very well arrive at an improved abstract idea; however, this does not automatically confer eligibility.
With respect to claim 28 in particular, examiner notes that applicant has conflated the abstract idea with the additional elements, as seen in the following remarks:
While claim 28 refers to the claimed system operating with respect to trade finance agreements (TFAs), claim 28 and its dependent claims are not directed to the business or agreement aspects of TFAs. Rather, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented mechanism for generating and using a structured relational representation of a procedural execution, (by way of example. of a TFA) to enable the system itself to control execution of the procedure.
As described, conventional systems (Fig. 1A) execute such procedures through ad hoc coordination between multiple entities, resulting in inefficient use of computing resources and unpredictable execution sequencing. In contrast, the claimed system (Fig. 1B): processes historical execution data of such procedures to: determine procedural stages for performing the procedures; associate each stage with corresponding data structures (e.g. forms); at least one collaboration network; determine performance metrics for the procedure and/or stages of the procedure; and generate a relational database encoding these interdependent features of the procedures.
In response to initiation of a new procedure the system accesses the relational database to access data associated with the procedure to: prioritize, schedule, and control execution of the procedure stages based on the performance metrics, including communication-related KPIs and associated STDs.
The claimed invention therefore changes how the computer system generates, stores, and utilizes structured data to control execution of a complex, distributed procedure, rather than merely automating a known workflow.
The claim recites a clear abstract idea, including:
process for each of a plurality of TFA types procedural histories of a plurality of TFAs of the TFA type to:
parse execution of the TFA type into a plurality of stages;
determine for each stage a set of TFA forms to be filled out to complete the stage;
determine for each stage at least one collaboration network associated with populating fields comprised in the set of TFA forms;
determine a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs) characterizing the TFA type and/or the stages, wherein the KPIs comprise at least one KPI and an associated standard deviation (STD) that provides a measure of communications bandwidth associated with executing TFAs of the TFA type and/or the stages;
generate a relational TFA database associating each of the plurality of TFA types with the stages, set of TFA forms, the at least one collaboration network, and KPIs and associated STDs determined for the TFA type;
in response to a request to initiate a given TFA of the plurality of TFAs to:
prioritize and schedule processing the TFA stages and forms for the given TFA based on the at least one communications bandwidth KPI and KPI STD associated with the given TFA in the relational database; and
[control] access to the prioritized schedule based on permissions associated with a collaboration network of the at least one collaboration network.
These are steps an administrator could easily perform, while determining priorities for various TFA stages. Examiner notes that [generating] a relational TFA database and an associated standard deviation (STD) that provides a measure of communications bandwidth associated with executing TFAs of the TFA type and/or the stages need not be technologically complex. An administrator could generate a relational table with pen and paper and determine, via elementary statistical methods, a standard deviation.
Applicant’s suggestion that the claims provide a technical improvement in a manner akin to Enfish is also not persuasive. Applicant’s additional elements – e.g., a processor, a memory storing the relational TFA database; a graphical user interface (GUI), etc. – are generic computing elements, used in their ordinary capacity, to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application or add significantly more.
Lastly, examiner notes that, in addition to the Abstract Idea rejection, claims 19-22 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant is directed to examiner’s explanation above.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20020107781, which teaches: [0002] This invention relates to electronic brokerage systems and in particular to systems in which counterparties trade anonymously within fixed credit limits. Such systems may trade financial instruments such as foreign exchange and forward rate agreements. The invention is particularly concerned with the handling of compound orders input into such systems. Compound orders may be multiple orders which are subject to a limit or condition or joint execution orders where a number of orders must all be executed or none at all.
US 20020133455, which teaches: [0014] An embodiment of the invention provides an anonymous trading system for trading financial or other instruments which include a communications network for transmitting electronic messages. A plurality of trader terminals are connected to the network, each can generate electronic price quotation messages which includes bid and/or offer prices and can communicate to the trader information from other trader terminals. One or more matching engines are connected to the network for matching bids and offers and, when a match is made, for executing deals. A market distribution means connected to the network distributes price messages to the trader terminals and is responsive to price quotation messages and the matching engines. Credit limit storage means store credit limits available for trades between a trading floor or group of trading floors and possible counterparty trading floors or groups of trading floors. The credit limit storage means includes at least one credit agent node which stores credit limits for a group of trading floors.
US 20100138333, which teaches: [0012] The invention also provides a computerised trading system for trading instruments between parties comprising: a plurality or order input devices for entering order information into the system, the order input devices including a plurality of trader input devices for inputting order from traders, and at least one broker order input device for trading on behalf of a plurality of clients; at least one matching engine connected to the network for matching bid and offer orders input into the system and for executing deals where orders are matched; and a market distributor for distributing order price messages to the order input devices, the market distributor being responsible to the order messages and the matching engine, wherein trades conducted between trader order input devices are anonymous as to the parties until completion of a trade, and trades to which the broker order input device is a party require disclosure of the parties to the trade prior to completion of the trade.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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 SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights