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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the application filed on 12/09/2024.
Claims 1-14 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-14 are directed to a method, a non-transitory computer readable memory which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus a 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 the limitations of “…providing a menu of a plurality of individuals to said user, wherein each of the plurality of individuals is associated with a respective one or more securities trades made; receiving, from said user, a selection of at least one of the plurality of individuals; providing, for said user, a graphical display of the respective one or more securities trades made”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relation, i.e. providing an investment information to a user) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the method claim of a trading platform that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…providing… a menu of a plurality of individuals to said user…; receiving…a selection of at least one of the plurality of individuals; and providing… a graphical display of the respective one or more securities trades…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does 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 trading platform that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…providing… a menu of a plurality of individuals to said user…; receiving…a selection of at least one of the plurality of individuals; and providing… a graphical display of the respective one or more securities trades…”, 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…collecting information respective of one or more transactions related to securities trading made by a plurality of individual traders; collecting characteristics of each of said plurality of individual traders; generating a graphical display of said one or more transactions related to securities trading made by said plurality of individual traders; displaying said graphical display to said user; listing said characteristics of each of said plurality of individual traders to said user; receiving from said user a selection of at least one of said plurality of individual traders; and providing to said user, the one or more securities trading transactions of said at least one of said plurality of individual traders selected by said user”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including business relation, i.e. providing securities trading information to a user) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the method claim of a trading platform that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “collecting …information respective of one or more transactions; collecting …characteristics of each of said plurality of individual traders; generating …a graphical display of said one or more transactions; displaying… graphical display to said user; listing… said characteristics of each of said plurality of individual traders to said user; receiving …a selection of at least one of said plurality of individual traders; and providing… the one or more securities trading transactions… to the user…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does 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 trading platform that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “collecting …information respective of one or more transactions; collecting …characteristics of each of said plurality of individual traders; generating …a graphical display of said one or more transactions; displaying… graphical display to said user; listing… said characteristics of each of said plurality of individual traders to said user; receiving …a selection of at least one of said plurality of individual traders; and providing… the one or more securities trading transactions… to the user…”, 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.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-14 are dependent on claims 1 and 7. Therefore, claims 2-6 and 8-14 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1 and 7. Claims 2-6 and 8-14 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 trading platform included in the dependent claims 4-6, 9 and 11 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…trading… in real time and communicating…about the security trades being made in real time” (claim 4); “providing… graphical display of the respective one or more securities trades in real time” (claim 5); “providing…for said user investment information programming in real time” (claim 6); “providing …a graphical display occurs in real time” (claim 9); and providing …a graphical display one or more securities trading transactions…” (claim 11), 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 2-6 and 8-14 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 trading platform included in the dependent claims 4-6, 9 and 11 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…trading… in real time and communicating…about the security trades being made in real time” (claim 4); “providing… graphical display of the respective one or more securities trades in real time” (claim 5); “providing…for said user investment information programming in real time” (claim 6); “providing …a graphical display occurs in real time” (claim 9); and providing …a graphical display one or more securities trading transactions…” (claim 11), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. 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 2-6 and 8-14 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.
Claim 1 and claim 7 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,204 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/236,518). Both claim 1 and claim 7 of the instant application and claim 1 and claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,204 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/236,518) are directed to a method and a non-transitory, computer-readable for presenting securities trading information to the user. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,204 also contains additional limitations not found in claim 1 of the instant application, such as the limitations “…c) providing, for said user of said trading platform, a graphical display of the respective one or more securities trades made through the trading platform, said graphical display comprising at least one of a closing trade, an opening trade, a trade made that day, a trade made the previous day, and a trade made the previous week, pertaining to said one or more securities trades made through the trading platform; e) displaying, for said user of said trading platform, a first graphical display of a user's position through the trading platform; f) providing, for said user of said trading platform, a plurality of predetermined strategies through the trading platform; g) providing, for said user of said trading platform, a strategy edit interface, said strategy edit interface assisting said user to edit said user's position without clearing out a previous user's position each time an edit is provided; h) recalculating said user's position to create a new user's position, said recalculation of user's position based on user's adjustment to user's previous position using at least one of probability of profit, extrinsic value, spread price, profit and loss zones and stock price distribution curve to generate said new user's position; i) displaying, for said user of said trading platform, a second graphical display of said new user's position through the trading platform”. Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,204 also contains additional limitations not found in claim 7 of the instant application, such as the limitations “…c) generating a graphical display of said one or more transactions related to securities trading made by said plurality of individual traders, said graphical display comprising at least one of a closing trade, an opening trade, a trade made that day, a trade made the previous day, and a trade made the previous week, pertaining to said one or more transactions related to securities trading made through the trading platform; h) displaying, for said user of said trading platform, a first graphical display of a user's position through the trading platform; i) providing, for said user of said trading platform, a plurality of predetermined strategies through the trading platform; j) providing, for said user of said trading platform, a strategy edit interface, said strategy edit interface assisting said user to edit said user's position without clearing out a previous user's position each time an edit is provided; k) recalculating said user's position to create a new user's position, said recalculation of user's position based on user's adjustment to user's previous position using at least one of probability of profit, extrinsic value, spread price, profit and loss zones and stock price distribution curve to generate said new user's position; and l) Displaying, for said user of said trading platform, a second graphical display of said new user's position through the trading platform”. Accordingly, claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,204 are directed to a species of claims 1 and 7 of the current application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,204 so that the securities trading information would be presented more efficiently.
Claim 1 and claim 7 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,121 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 17/316,313). Both claim 1 and claim 7 of the instant application and claim 1 and claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,121 (co-pending U.S. Application No. 17/316,313) are directed to a method and a non-transitory, computer-readable for presenting securities trading information to the user. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,121 also contains additional limitations not found in claim 1 of the instant application, such as the limitations “c) providing, for said user of said trading platform, a graphical display of the respective one or more securities trades made through the trading platform, said graphical display comprising at least one of a closing trade, an opening trade, a trade made that day, a trade made the previous day, and a trade made the previous week, pertaining to said one or more securities trades made through the trading platform; e) displaying, for said user of said trading platform, a first graphical display of a user's position through the trading platform; f) providing, for said user of said trading platform, a plurality of predetermined strategies through the trading platform; g) providing, for said user of said trading platform, a strategy edit interface, said strategy edit interface assisting said user to edit said user's position without clearing out a previous user's position each time an edit is provided; h) recalculating said user's position to create a new user's position, said recalculation of user's position based on user's adjustment to user's previous position using at least one of probability of profit, extrinsic value, spread price, profit and loss zones and stock price distribution curve to generate said new user's position; i) displaying, for said user of said trading platform, a second graphical display of said new user's position through the trading platform”. Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,121 also contains additional limitations not found in claim 7 of the instant application, such as the limitations “…c) generating a graphical display of said one or more transactions related to securities trading made by said plurality of individual traders, said graphical display comprising at least one of a closing trade, an opening trade, a trade made that day, a trade made the previous day, and a trade made the previous week, pertaining to said one or more transactions related to securities trading made through the trading platform; e) listing said characteristics of each of said plurality of individual traders to said user of said trading platform, said characteristics of each of said plurality of individual traders comprising commentary pertaining to a rationale for the one or more transactions related to securities trading; f) receiving from said user of said trading platform a selection of at least one of said plurality of individual traders; g) providing to said user of said trading platform, securities trading information pertaining to the one or more securities trading transactions of said at least one of said plurality of individual traders selected by said user of said trading platform; h) displaying, for said user of said trading platform, a first graphical display of a user's position through the trading platform; i) providing, for said user of said trading platform, a plurality of predetermined strategies, each of said plurality of predetermined strategies comprises a long variation and a short variation, through the trading platform; j) providing, for said user of said trading platform, a strategy edit interface, said strategy edit interface assisting said user to edit said user's position without clearing out a previous user's position each time an edit is provided; k) recalculating said user's position, said recalculation of user's position based on user's adjustment to user's previous position using probability of profit, extrinsic value, spread price, profit and loss zones and stock price distribution curve to generate a new user's position; and l) Displaying, for said user of said trading platform, a second graphical display of the new user's position through the trading platform”. Accordingly, claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,121 are directed to a species of claims 1 and 7 of the current application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,121 so that the securities trading information would be presented more efficiently.
Conclusion
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/Art Unit 3694
