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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1–12). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of gathering financial data and identifying an instruction to execute a financial trade and then executing the financial trade by;
receiving a plurality of data and a plurality of instructions from…;
filtering the data, based on at least one of said plurality of instructions, using a plurality of data patterns to identify:
(i) a plurality of currency performance data including one or more of a respective average currency balance, a respective average interest rate, a respective average spread, and a respective total interest rate;
(ii) a replacement of a quantity of a base currency with a quantity of a market-biased currency to obtain an economic efficiency; and
(iii) an instruction to implement said replacement; and
executing one or more of a plurality of computer-readable code to:
(a) communicate with at least one electronic currency source to secure a first quantity of said market-biased currency to implement said replacement;
(b) implement said replacement, in accordance with said plurality of instructions, using at least a part of said first quantity of said market-biased currency;
(c) verify said replacement is a positive variation of at least one of said plurality of performance data; and
(d) transmit to said,…,a quantity value of said market-biased currency obtained via said replacement and a projected gain value calculated from said positive variation.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles as well as commercial or legal interactions (e.g., gathering financial data and identifying an instruction to execute a financial trade and then executing the financial trade).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “device” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraphs [008] of the specification). Independent claim 7 is nearly identical to independent claim 1 so the same analysis applies to that claim as well.
Dependent claims 2–6 and 8–12 have been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2 and 8 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the economic efficiency comprises an average interest rate greater than the respective average interest rate for the base currency. Dependent claims 3 and 9 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the economic efficiency comprises an average interest rate greater than the respective total interest rate for the base currency. Dependent claims 4 and 10 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the economic efficiency is an aggregate efficiency level for a first replacement of a first base currency. Dependent claims 5 and 11 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe the step of filtering the data which uses a statistical process to filter the data. Dependent claims 6 and 12 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe displaying the quantity value and gain as well as the loss value for the base currency.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following references pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
1. Bartko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0287087) discloses systems and methods for determining prices and executing trades among a plurality of users of an electronic trading system.
2. Myr (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0283422) discloses a system, method, and computer software application for electronic currency trading exchange.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313)446-4902. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (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.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner Art Unit 3696
/JOSEPH W. KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696