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 .
Acknowledgement
The amendment/request for Reconsideration mailed 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 9-11, 15-16, and 20-22 have been amended.
Claims 1-26 are pending in the application
Response to Arguments
The asserted amendments of, receiving trading commands from interfaces of electronic device for a plurality of orders, suggest both managing transactions which are similar to functions which the courts have considered well-understood, routine and conventional such as receiving and transmitting data over a network [e.g., receiving, processing- (via commands) and storing data]
Iterating through a plurality of orders at multiple price levels against the hybrid order book, may be interpreted as being considered as performing repetitive calculations, while checking with the automated market maker at each price level to determine liquidity and whether the automated market maker can contribute additional liquidity to the orders, does not represent an improvement to the computer itself or the technology itself but are merely computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing and storing data, automated mental tasks, or electronic recordkeeping) merely used to implement the abstract idea of decentralized trading where the idea of market maker has conventionally been performed by a human analog. This also includes checking solvency against the least collateralized position, wherein an updated visualization is similar to what the courts have indicated inpatentable collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results.
Thus for these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method for facilitating electronic trading. claim 11 is directed to a machine readable medium, and claim 15 is directed to an apparatus.
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “decentralized trading” which can be grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity used to describe concepts relating to fundamental economic principles and practices (e.g., economic systems wherein market based orders are held to be superior to centralized systems1) and/or managing transactions between people, such as creating a contractual relationships, satisfying or avoiding legal obligation and sales activities.
Claim 1 recites, “… receiving…trading commands for an order…; communicating the trading commands for the order…; executing the order…integrating liquidity…;…implementing a solvency check, using a safe margin lending service for margin lending, to determine whether another order of a maximum size does not impact solvency of margin accounts based on liquidity available …, wherein, upon the solvency check determining that the other order of the maximum size does impact the solvency of the margin accounts, preemptively liquidating all margin accounts impacted; wherein the solvency check involves, by the safe margin lending service, determining a least collateralized position (LCP) and executing the solvency check against only the LCP; wherein the solvency check involves, by the safe margin lending service, querying the automated market maker for deterministic pricing data corresponding to a value for one or more assets relating to the order; and updating … with status information for the order …”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as “at least one processor”, “memory”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to decentralized trading.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of decentralized trading using computer technology (e.g. processor, memory, computing device, electronic trading system). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Hence, claims 1, 9, 15 and 20 are not patent eligible.
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 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 DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights