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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement filed 10/17/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because a legible copy of reference 1 listed under Non-Patent Literature Documents was not submitted as required under 37 CFR 1.98 (a)(2). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
3. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of, obtain the real-time chart from the foreign exchange trading system in real time and write the real-time chart in the memory; write a buying threshold for buying the another asset, a selling threshold for selling the another asset and a profit lock-in threshold for locking in a profit in the memory, on the real-time chart, an initial buy order or sell order is transmitted to the foreign exchange trading system on a market basis, when the initial order is a buy order, writes a rate at the buy order in the memory as the buying threshold, and writes determines the buying threshold - a first predetermined value in the memory as the selling threshold, when the initial order is a sell order, writes a rate at the sell order in the memory as the selling threshold, and writes the selling threshold + a first predetermined value in the memory as the buying threshold, transmitting second-time and onward transactions to the foreign exchange system with the buying threshold and the selling threshold written in the initial order fixed at a constant value, and in the second-time and onward transactions, transmits a buy order or a sell order so as to transmit a transaction opposite from a previous transaction to the foreign exchange trading system when the buying threshold or the selling threshold is exceeded, an order quantity in second-time and onward orders being set to be greater than or equal to an order quantity in a previous order, and locks in a profit over the profit lock-in threshold determined by the buying threshold + a second predetermined value in the real-time chart, or under the profit lock-in threshold determined by the selling threshold – a second predetermined value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention allows for a foreign exchange hedging and trading which is a fundamental economic practice. The mere nominal recitation of a generic system comprising a server connected to a foreign exchange trading system, memory, and processors does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— a system comprising a server connected to a foreign exchange trading system, memory, and processors. The system comprising a server connected to a foreign exchange trading system, memory, and processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system comprising a server, memory and processors) such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a system (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). 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.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do 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 using a system, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claim 2 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-2 is/are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
4. In response to the amendment of claim 1, the Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection.
On page 5 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong one, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims are directed to a specific
technical implementation of a foreign exchange hedging system that utilizes a server and a memory to automatically execute buy/sell transactions and lock in profits based on real-time chart data and thresholds stored in the memory. These configurations are not a generic computer performing routine functions, but rather a concrete and technological solution to the technical problem of achieving timely and accurate automated trading decisions in response to rapidly changing foreign exchange rates.
The argument is not persuasive. The Patent Office has issued guidance about this framework. -See MPEP§ 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020), in particular, Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). As indicated in the MPEP § 2106, to decide whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim (1) recites one of the abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (“Prong One”) and (2) fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (“Prong Two”).
Beginning with Prong One, step 2A of the eligibility analysis, we must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. One of the subject matter groupings identified as an abstract idea in the Guidance is “[certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including . . . mitigating risk, insurance); commercial. . . interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; . . . sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including . . . following rules or instructions)].” See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Here, apart from the recited systems, i.e., a system comprising a server connected to a foreign exchange trading system, memory, and processors, claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the category of “methods of organizing human activity.”
In the 101 analysis in the rejection above, the Examiner identifies and considers each of the underlying steps for the claims as a basis for describing and explaining the recited abstract idea. For example, the Examiner identifies the underlying steps of claim 1—i.e., the obtaining, writing, transmitting and locking—and explains that they describe the concept of foreign exchange trading and hedging. The Examiner' s approach here is consistent with USPTO guidance.
The focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the identified additional elements as tools, but on the abstract ideas that use the additional elements as tools. The use of generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that under Step 2A, prong two, the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and that the claimed operations constitute specific data process and system level control that cannot be performed mentally and that improve the functioning of the trading system itself and imposes real world technological implementation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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).
Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, a system comprising a server connected to a foreign exchange trading system, memory, and processors. The system comprising a server connected to a foreign exchange trading system, memory, and processors are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
The Examiner fails to see, and the Applicant fails to point out, how the steps are unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application.
Under Step 2B, mere instructions to apply an exception using cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
5. 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 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 ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694