DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment to the claims filed Dec. 26, 2024, is acknowledged and entered. MPEP § 714.01(e).
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Dec. 24, 2024, as amended by preliminary amendment to the claims filed Dec. 26, 2024, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Interviews conducted solely for the purpose of “sounding out” the examiner, including by local counsel acting only as a conduit for another practitioner, are not permitted under MPEP § 713.03. The Office is strictly enforcing established interview practice, and applicants should ensure that every interview request is directed toward advancing prosecution on the merits in compliance with MPEP §§ 713 and 713.03.
For after-final Interview requests, supervisory approval is required before an interview may be granted. Each AIR should specifically explain how the After-Final Interview request will advance prosecution—for example, by identifying targeted arguments responsive to the rejection of record, alleged defects in the examiner’s analysis, proposed claim amendments, or another concrete basis for discussion. See MPEP § 713. If the AIR form’s character limits prevent inclusion of all pertinent details, Applicants may send a contemporaneous email to the examiner at James.Miller1@uspto.gov.
The examiner is generally available Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
For any GRANTED Interview Request, Applicant can expect an email within 24 hours confirming an interview slot from the dates/times proposed and providing collaboration tool access instructions. For any DENIED Interview Request, the record will include a communication explaining the reason for the denial.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Dec. 24, 2024, was filed before the mailing of a first office action on the merits and therefore, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b)(3). Accordingly, the IDS has been considered.
Claim Status
Upon entry of the preliminary amendment, the status of claims is as follows:
Claims 2–15 are pending and examined with Claim 2 in independent form.
Claim 1 is cancelled by preliminary amendment.
This is a first action on the merits.
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 2–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 2–15 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 2–15 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.”
Representative Claim
Claim 2 is representative [“Rep. Claim 2”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations1 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] 2. A system for dynamic strategy management, the system including: a trading device configured to:
[B] provide a user interface in a display of a computing device, wherein the user interface depicts a strategy node, a first contract node of a plurality of contract nodes and a second contract nodes of the plurality of contract nodes, wherein the strategy node corresponds to a trading strategy having a strategy definition, and wherein each of the plurality of contract nodes represents a contract associated with a tradeable object;
[C] in response to an input detected via the user interface, connect the strategy node to the first contract node using a graphical connector displayed by the user interface, wherein the connection reflects the strategy definition;
[D] subsequent to connecting the strategy node to the first contract node, roll the contract by repositioning the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node such that the second contract node is visually connected the strategy node; and
[E] in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector, generate an updated strategy definition for the trading strategy by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 2 recites “roll the contract” (Limitation D) and “generate an updated strategy definition for the trading strategy by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node” (Limitation E), which is a fundamental economic principle/practice and commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception. Limitations D & E (sans the GUI elements) describe the well-known trading practice of contract rolling, where a position in one contract is closed (sometimes because it is expiring) and reassociated with a new and different contract. Contract rolling is a longstanding commercial practice or fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and pre-dates computers. The contract rolling process being old and well known “indicates that the practice is fundamental.” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’").
Alternatively2, The concept of “roll[ing] the contract” (Limitation D) and “generat[ing] an updated strategy definition for the trading strategy by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node” (Limitation E), as drafted, recites the abstract idea exception of mental processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of the generic computer components indicated in bold. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). “[R]oll[ing] the contract” (Limitation D) and “generat[ing] an updated strategy definition for the trading strategy by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node” (Limitation E) are mental processes that are practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because it requires mere “observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion” for a human trader to identify which contract a strategy is currently associated with and decide to associate it with a different contract instead. This characterization is further confirmed by Applicant’s Specification, ¶ 89, “identification of shared contracts is a manual process to reconfigure those trading strategies (e.g., spreads) when the shared contract is to "roll" or shift to a next month (e.g., a new expiration) and/or other contract.” See also, ¶ 92 (describing the invention as addressing the prior art problem of manual contract identification and reconfiguration, confirming the prior art manual context). Because the core concept of the claim, i.e., rolling a contract by changing a first tradeable object to a second tradeable object to generate an updated strategy definition, was previously performed by hand it is further evidence that the claim is a mental process and abstract.
The use of terms “contract node” and tradeable object” to describe the objects of the mental process does not negate its mental character under BRI. The preamble phrase describing the system “for dynamic strategy management” corroborates the abstract idea characterization by confirming that the claimed steps recite management of a trading strategy.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements identified in Rep. Claim 2, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application. MPE § 2106.04(d)(1).
The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: A system including: a trading device; a user interface in a display of a computing device … depict[ing] a strategy node, a first contract node of a plurality of contract nodes and a second contract nodes of the plurality of contract nodes; in response to an input detected via the user interface, connect the strategy node to the first contract node using a graphical connector displayed by the user interface, subsequent to connecting the strategy node to the first contract node … repositioning the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node such that the second contract node is visually connected the strategy node, in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector; and in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector.
The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a). A claim improves technology only when it recites a specific improvement to the way a computer itself operates and does not merely apply an existing process using a computer. Here, the abstract idea exception of “roll[ing] the contract” (Limitation D) and “generat[ing] an updated strategy definition for the trading strategy by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node” (Limitation E) was previously performed manually. Spec. ¶¶ 89, 93 (cited supra). Because the process can be performed manually, the computer is not being improved and is merely being used as a tool to perform the pre-existing manual process. Applying a manual process using a computer, even via a GUI, is not an improvement to computer technology. Further, the specification describes no specific technical improvement to the GUI, display technology, or trading device itself. Spec. ¶¶ 15, 90 (improvement described in terms of the trading outcome (i.e., graphical manipulation of trading strategies) rather than a technical improvement to the computing device of GUIs).
Rather, the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional elements, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them with specificity beyond exemplary language or describes them as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. The specification’s own broad, exemplary characterization confirms that these components are not described in a manner that would impose any specific technical limitation that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶ 34 (any known trading device); ¶ 63 (generic computing device); ¶ 65 (any suitable processor); ¶ 39 (conventional trading application operating on generic computer hardware); ¶ 21 (non-limiting and exemplary nature of entire technical disclose). The generic device, here, performs calculations and functions that are programmed by software directed to the abstract idea. Spec. ¶¶ 66, 69. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow, and whose directions are directed to the abstract idea.
The displaying and user interface steps fail to transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter, as they are field of use and the technical environment in which the abstract idea is implemented and do not result in an improvement to additional elements, or a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group). The specification confirms that the graphical display elements (strategy nodes, contract nodes, and graphical connectors) are described only at a high, functional level without any specific technical improvement to the GUI. E.g., Spec. ¶¶ 17, 93. Further, requiring the use of software to tailor trading strategy information and provide it to the user on a generic computer also does not provide a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Limitation A describes the trading device performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself on a general-purpose computer. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception using a general-purpose computer, merely adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception without imposing any meaningful technical limitations. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the claim generically recites an effect of the abstract idea without specifying how the computer achieves that effect in any technically meaningful way. MPEP § 2106.05(f); see also Spec. ¶ 94.
Therefore, the claim as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 2 fails Step 2B because the claim as a whole, even when considering the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements (i.e., A system including: a trading device; a user interface in a display of a computing device … depict[ing] a strategy node, a first contract node of a plurality of contract nodes and a second contract nodes of the plurality of contract nodes; in response to an input detected via the user interface, connect the strategy node to the first contract node using a graphical connector displayed by the user interface, subsequent to connecting the strategy node to the first contract node … repositioning the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node such that the second contract node is visually connected the strategy node, in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector; and in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector), are each well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WRC”) computer components and functions in the relevant field, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure3. Further, Applicant’s Specification discloses that these components operate in no particular order and are implemented using generic, off-the-shelf computing technology. Spec. ¶¶ 21, 140 (steps/functions may be performed in any order or concurrently, and any or all components may be performed sequentially or in parallel by separate processing threads, processors, devices or circuits.); ¶ 141 (disclosure expressly not limited to a particular embodiment, all equivalents included which confirms generic and non-limiting nature of disclosure); ¶¶ 21, 34, 39, 63, 65 (describing each component using exemplary language as generic or known computing equipment and networks).
(1) A trading device and computing device are WRC in the financial technology trading field. Spec. ¶¶ 34, 35, 63, 65.
(2) a user interface in a display of a computing device … depict[ing] a strategy node, a first contract node of a plurality of contract nodes and a second contract nodes of the plurality of contract nodes; in response to an input detected via the user interface, connect the strategy node to the first contract node using a graphical connector displayed by the user interface, subsequent to connecting the strategy node to the first contract node … repositioning the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node such that the second contract node is visually connected the strategy node, and in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector are WRC. Spec. ¶¶ 17, 20, 39, 63, 66, 93.
The Specification further confirms that the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, and processing data are normal, well-understood operations of generic computer systems, and the steps may be performed in any order or concurrently. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 21, 66, 69.
The combination is also WRC at the high level of generality recited:
The combination of the additional elements is likewise WRC. A combination of individually well-understood, routine, and conventional elements does not provide an inventive concept unless the combination itself produces an unconventional result or is applied in an unconventional manner. MPEP § 2106.05(d). Here, the combination performs each step in exactly the manner described as conventional throughout Applicant’s own Specification. Spec. ¶¶ 21, 93. There is no indication that the combination of these elements operates in an unconventional manner or produces a result that is other than what would be expected from the generic application of these individual components.
Unlike BASCOM, where the claims recited a specific non-conventional arrangement of installing a filtering tool at a specific network location rather than on individual devices, Rep. Claim 2 does not recite how the elements are combined in a non-conventional way. The claims recite each element at a high level of generality without specifying the particular arrangement or order that constitutes the alleged improvement. At the high level of generality recited, the combination is WRC. Any BASCOM argument fails because the non-conventional arrangement described in the specification is simply not recited in the claims. Because the claims here recite only generic components performing generic functions at a high level of generality, no inventive concept is present under Step 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, the additional elements of Rep. Claim 2 have been recognized, based on Applicant’s own disclosure, as WRC activity in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d). These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) using known computer and computer-related components. See also Step 2A, Prong Two, supra.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims 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. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 3–15 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims. Claims 3–15 recite additional limitations including specific input types (Claims 5–6), a spread trading strategy (Claim 4), flexible connector deformation (Claim 11), a touchscreen display (Claim 12), and multi-strategy rolling (Claims 13–15) that further limit the abstract idea but do not integrate it into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Each additional limitation either (1) further describes the abstract idea itself using GUI vocabulary, (2) recites a generic computer component or conventional user input (click, drag-and-drop, touchscreen), or (3) recites a functional result without specifying a technical mechanism. Claim 11 is merely described at a functional level without specifying any technical mechanism. Spec. ¶ 93 (describing this feature functionally). A functional description of the display result is not a specific improvement under MPRP § 2106.05(a). Likewise, Claims 13–15 are purely functional and not a specific improvement under MPEP § 2106.05(a) for the same reason. None of the dependent claim limitations, individually or in combination with the independent claim, impose a specific technical improvement to computer functionality that would satisfy MPEP § 2106.05(a) or provide significantly more than the abstract idea under MPEP § 2106.05(d)
Conclusion
Claims 2–15 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 2 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,545 [“Conflicting Patent1”].
The obviousness-type double patenting analysis involves two steps: First, differences between the claim(s) in the earlier filed patent and the claim(s) in the later patent are determined. Second, a determination is made whether the differences render the pending claims patentable distinct. A later claim that is not patentably distinct from (i.e., is obvious over or anticipated by) an earlier claim is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.
For the reasons below, the Examiner finds the pending claims are not identical with the Conflicting Patent1 but are not patentably distinct.
Same Inventive Entities and Commonly Assigned
Examiner finds the current application and the Conflicting Patent1 name the same inventive entity, Scott F. Singer, and is commonly assigned to TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.
Identification of Differences
Line numbers are added for clarity in describing the claim limitations below. Bold limitations are identified differences. Italics limitations are interpreted as intended use.4
Line No.
Claim #
Pending Application
Claim #
Conflicting Patent1
A
2
A system for dynamic strategy management, the system including: a trading device configured to:
1
A non-transitory computer readable medium having
stored therein instructions executable by a processor, including instructions executable to:
B
2
provide a user interface in a display of a computing device, wherein the user interface depicts a strategy
node, a first contract node of a plurality of contract nodes and a second contract nodes of the plurality of contract nodes, wherein the strategy node corresponds to a trading strategy having a strategy definition, and
wherein each of the plurality of contract nodes represents a contract associated with a tradeable object;
1
provide a user interface in a display of a computing
device, wherein the user interface depicts a strategy
node, a first contract node of a plurality of contract nodes and a second contract nodes of the plurality of contract nodes, wherein the strategy node corresponds to a trading strategy having a strategy definition, and
wherein each of the plurality of contract nodes represents
a contract associated with a tradeable object;
C
2
in response to an input detected via the user interface, connect the strategy node to the first contract node using a graphical connector displayed by the user interface, wherein the connection reflects the strategy definition;
1
in response to an input detected via the user interface, connect the strategy node to the first contract node using a graphical connector displayed by the user
interface, wherein the connection reflects the strategy definition;
D
2
subsequent to connecting the strategy node to the first contract node, roll the contract by repositioning the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node such that the second contract node is visually connected the strategy node; and
1
subsequent to connecting the strategy node to the first
contract node, roll the contract by repositioning the
graphical connector from the first contract node to the
second contract node such that the second contract
node is visually connected the strategy node;
E
2
in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector, generate an updated strategy definition for the trading strategy by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node.
1
in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector, generate an updated strategy definition for the trading strategy by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node; and
F
2
1
automatically executing the updated strategy definition at an exchange.
Differences not patentably distinct
“The claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim(s). This type of nonstatutory double patenting situation arises when the claim being examined is, for example, generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in a conflicting patent or application, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. In such a situation, a later patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the right to exclude granted by an earlier patent directed to a species or sub-genus. In this type of nonstatutory double patenting situation, an obviousness analysis is not required for the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.” MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2) (emphasis added).
Here, Line F in the Conflicting Patent1 has been omitted in the claims under examination. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the Conflicting Patent1 anticipates the claimed genus in the claims under examination. MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2). Accordingly, “a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus.” MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2).
Regarding Line A, the only distinction is that Claim 2 recites a device configured perform the recited operations while Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent1 recites instructions stored on a medium that cause a processor to perform the same operations. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to implement the claimed trading device of Claim 2 using software instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and to claim those same instructions as configuring a system to perform the recited functions. Thus, the CRM claim and the system claim are mere statutory class variants of the same underlying invention and are not patentable distinct. MPEP § 804.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,922,502 [“Conflicting Patent2”].
The obviousness-type double patenting analysis involves two steps: First, differences between the claim(s) in the earlier filed patent and the claim(s) in the later patent are determined. Second, a determination is made whether the differences render the pending claims patentable distinct. A later claim that is not patentably distinct from (i.e., is obvious over or anticipated by) an earlier claim is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.
For the reasons below, the Examiner finds the pending claims are not identical with the Conflicting Patent2 but are not patentably distinct.
Same Inventive Entities and Commonly Assigned
Examiner finds the current application and the Conflicting Patent2 name the same inventive entity, Scott F. Singer, and is commonly assigned to TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.
Identification of Differences
Line numbers are added for clarity in describing the claim limitations below. Bold limitations are identified differences. Italics limitations are interpreted as intended use.5
Line No.
Claim #
Pending Application
Claim #
Conflicting Patent2
A
2
A system for dynamic strategy management, the system including: a trading device configured to:
1
A method including:
B
2
provide a user interface in a display of a computing device, wherein the user interface depicts a strategy node, a first contract node of a plurality of contract nodes and a second contract nodes of the plurality of contract nodes, wherein the strategy node corresponds to a trading strategy having a strategy definition, and
wherein each of the plurality of contract nodes represents a contract associated with a tradeable object;
1
providing a user interface in a display of a computing
device, wherein the user interface depicts a strategy
node, a first contract node of a plurality of contract 30
nodes and a second contract nodes of the plurality of
contract nodes, wherein the strategy node corresponds
to a trading strategy having a strategy definition, and
wherein each of the plurality of contract nodes represents
a contract associated with a tradeable object;
C
2
in response to an input detected via the user interface, connect the strategy node to the first contract node using a graphical connector displayed by the user interface, wherein the connection reflects the strategy definition;
1
in response to an input detected via the user interface, connecting the strategy node to the first contract node using a graphical connector displayed by the user
interface, wherein the connection reflects the strategy definition;
D
2
subsequent to connecting the strategy node to the first contract node, roll the contract by repositioning the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node such that the second contract node is visually connected the strategy node; and
1
subsequent to connecting the strategy node to the first
contract node, rolling the contract by repositioning the
graphical connector from the first contract node to the
second contract node such that the second contract
node is visually connected the strategy node; and
E
2
in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector, generate an updated strategy definition for the trading strategy by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node.
1
in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector, generating an updated strategy definition for the trading strategy by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node.
Differences not patentably distinct
Regarding Line A, the only distinction is that Claim 2 recites a device configured perform the recited operations while Claim 1 of the Conflicting Patent2 recites a method to perform the same operations. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA that a system/device configured to perform these steps and a method to perform the same steps are mere statutory class variants of the same underlying invention and are not patentable distinct. MPEP § 804.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,551,301 [“Conflicting Patent3”].
The obviousness-type double patenting analysis involves two steps: First, differences between the claim(s) in the earlier filed patent and the claim(s) in the later patent are determined. Second, a determination is made whether the differences render the pending claims patentable distinct. A later claim that is not patentably distinct from (i.e., is obvious over or anticipated by) an earlier claim is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.
For the reasons below, the Examiner finds the pending claims are not identical with the Conflicting Patent3 but are not patentably distinct.
Same Inventive Entities and Commonly Assigned
Examiner finds the current application and the Conflicting Patent3 name the same inventive entity, Scott F. Singer, and is commonly assigned to TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.
Identification of Differences
Claim 2 under examination is directed to a system including a trading device configured to provide a user interface that depicts a strategy node and first and second contract nodes, connect the strategy node to the first contract node via a graphical connector, roll the contract by repositioning the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node, and, in response to the repositioning, generate an updated strategy definition by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node.
Claim 1 of Conflicting Patnent3 is also directed to a system for dynamic strategy management that includes a trading device, but further describes the same operations in slightly more detail (e.g., expressly reciting repositioning an endpoint of the graphical connector and stating that the repositioning “indicate[s] a roll” of the contract from the first contract node to the second contract node, and “generating an updated trading strategy” by changing the tradeable object from the contract represented by the first contract node to the contract represented by the second contract node.
Differences in claim wording or the level of descriptive detail do not, by themselves, avoid an obvious type double patenting rejection where the later claim is directed to the same invention or an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the earlier patent. MPEP § 804. Here, the additional detail in Claim 1 of Conflicting Patent3 does not define a patentably distinct invention over Claim 2, under examination. A PHOSITA, when implementing the system of Claim 2, would necessarily reposition an endpoint of the graphical connector in the GUI to position the connector from the first contract node to the second contract node. Explicitly reciting “an endpoint of the graphical connector,” that the repositioning “indicates a roll,” and that the tradeable object is changed “from the contract represented by the first contract node to the contract represented by the second contract node” merely describes in more detail what is already described in Claim 2.
Accordingly, Claim 1 of Conflicting Patent3 are directed to the same underlying dynamic strategy management system, with Claim 1 differing only by obvious implementation details and drafting choices in how the graphical connector and tradeable object update are described.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,138,665 [“Conflicting Patent4”].
The obviousness-type double patenting analysis involves two steps: First, differences between the claim(s) in the earlier filed patent and the claim(s) in the later patent are determined. Second, a determination is made whether the differences render the pending claims patentable distinct. A later claim that is not patentably distinct from (i.e., is obvious over or anticipated by) an earlier claim is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.
For the reasons below, the Examiner finds the pending claims are not identical with the Conflicting Patent4 but are not patentably distinct.
Same Inventive Entities and Commonly Assigned
Examiner finds the current application and the Conflicting Patent4 name the same inventive entity, Scott F. Singer, and is commonly assigned to TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.
Identification of Differences
Claim 2 under examination is directed to a system including a trading device configured to provide a user interface that depicts a strategy node and first and second contract nodes, connect the strategy node to the first contract node via a graphical connector, roll the contract by repositioning the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node, and, in response to the repositioning, generate an updated strategy definition by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node.
Claim 1 of Conflicting Patnent4 is directed to a non transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a trading device, cause the device to perform substantially the same operations: display a strategy node and a plurality of contract nodes including at least a first contract node and a second contract node, generate a graphical connector between the strategy node and the first contract node, reposition, in response to an input received via the graphical interface, an endpoint of the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node in the graphical user interface to indicate a roll of the contract represented by the first contract node to the contract represented by the second contract node for the trading strategy, and generate, in response to the repositioning of the endpoint of the graphical connector, an updated trading strategy by changing the first tradeable object from the contract represented by the first contract node to the contract represented by the second contract node.
Differences in claim wording or the level of descriptive detail do not, by themselves, avoid an obvious type double patenting rejection where the later claim is directed to the same invention or an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the earlier patent. MPEP § 804. Here, the additional detail in Claim 1 of Conflicting Patent4 does not define a patentably distinct invention over Claim 2, under examination. A PHOSITA, when implementing the system of Claim 2, would necessarily employ software instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and executed by a processor to perform the recited functions, and would necessarily reposition an endpoint of the graphical connector in the graphical user interface to carry the connector from the first contract node to the second contract node. Explicitly reciting storage of the instructions on a computer readable medium, “an endpoint of the graphical connector,” that the repositioning “indicate[s] a roll” of the contract from the first contract node to the second contract node, and that the tradeable object is changed “from the contract represented by the first contract node to the contract represented by the second contract node” merely describes, in more detail and in CRM form, what is already performed in the system of Claim 2.
Accordingly, Claim 1 of Conflicting Patent4 is directed to the same underlying dynamic strategy management system, with Claim 1 differing only by obvious implementation details and drafting choices in how the graphical connector and tradeable object update are described.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,868 [“Conflicting Patent5”].
The obviousness-type double patenting analysis involves two steps: First, differences between the claim(s) in the earlier filed patent and the claim(s) in the later patent are determined. Second, a determination is made whether the differences render the pending claims patentable distinct. A later claim that is not patentably distinct from (i.e., is obvious over or anticipated by) an earlier claim is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.
For the reasons below, the Examiner finds the pending claims are not identical with the Conflicting Patent5 but are not patentably distinct.
Same Inventive Entities and Commonly Assigned
Examiner finds the current application and the Conflicting Patent5 name the same inventive entity, Scott F. Singer, and is commonly assigned to TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.
Identification of Differences
Claim 2 under examination is directed to a system including a trading device configured to provide a user interface that depicts a strategy node and first and second contract nodes, connect the strategy node to the first contract node via a graphical connector, roll the contract by repositioning the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node, and, in response to the repositioning, generate an updated strategy definition by changing a first tradeable object associated with the first contract node to a second tradeable object associated with the second contract node.
Claim 1 of Conflicting Patnent5 is directed to a method system for dynamic strategy management that includes a computing device, but further describes the same operations in slightly more detail (e.g., expressly reciting repositioning an endpoint of the graphical connector and stating that the repositioning “indicate[s] a roll” of the contract from the first contract node to the second contract node, and “generating an updated trading strategy” by changing the tradeable object from the contract represented by the first contract node to the contract represented by the second contract node.
Claim 1 of Conflicting Patnent5 is directed to a method to perform substantially the same operations: display a strategy node and a plurality of contract nodes including at least a first contract node and a second contract node, generate a graphical connector between the strategy node and the first contract node, reposition, in response to an input received via the graphical interface, an endpoint of the graphical connector from the first contract node to the second contract node in the graphical user interface to indicate a roll of the contract represented by the first contract node to the contract represented by the second contract node for the trading strategy, and generate, in response to the repositioning of the endpoint of the graphical connector, an updated trading strategy by changing the first tradeable object from the contract represented by the first contract node to the contract represented by the second contract node.
Differences in claim wording or the level of descriptive detail do not, by themselves, avoid an obvious type double patenting rejection where the later claim is directed to the same invention or an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the earlier patent. MPEP § 804. Here, the additional detail in Claim 1 of Conflicting Patent5 does not define a patentably distinct invention over Claim 2, under examination. A PHOSITA, when implementing the system of Claim 2, employs the same method and would necessarily reposition an endpoint of the graphical connector in the graphical user interface to carry the connector from the first contract node to the second contract node. Explicitly reciting “an endpoint of the graphical connector,” that the repositioning “indicate[s] a roll” of the contract from the first contract node to the second contract node, and that the tradeable object is changed “from the contract represented by the first contract node to the contract represented by the second contract node” merely describes, in more detail what is already performed in the system of Claim 2.
Accordingly, Claim 1 of Conflicting Patent4 is directed to the same underlying dynamic strategy management system, with Claim 1 differing only by obvious implementation details and drafting choices in how the graphical connector and tradeable object update are described.
Examiner Statement of Prior Art—No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application. While some individual features of Claims 2–15 may be shown in the prior art of record—no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of Claims 2–15.
The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are:
Potekhina et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0095365) is pertinent because it discloses “opportunities for altering trading strategy positions” and “trading strategy leg conversions” that are “visually represented” “as a directed graph.” Potekhina, Abstract; ¶ 14.
Murphy et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,682,773) is pertinent because it discloses methods to visually design computer trading strategies using drop and drag, pre-programmed, visual components. Murphy, col. 1:28–35. Murphy discloses a graphical connector between two trading strategies, Fig. 5, but does not reconfigure the underlying trading strategy definition by the claimed method.
FOR: Japanese Pat. Pub. 2009/535713 A is pertinent because it discloses a graphical user interface with an automated algorithm selection function that allows market participants to launch an automated multi-algorithm trading strategy with a single drag and drop operation.
NPL: "Chou, Chia-Han, and Allen Y. Chang. "Visual Development Platform for White-Box Algorithmic Trading." In 2010 Sixth International Conference on Intelligent Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing, pp. 712-715. IEEE, 2010 is pertinent because it discloses a set of tools to implement trading strategies using visual programming methodology. NPL Chou at *1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 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, Bennett M 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
2 “It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. … Accordingly, examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings and proceed with the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two.” MPEP § 2106.04(a).
3 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").
4 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
5 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
Prosecution Insights