DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Jul. 7, 2026, and is made 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
Interviews are “indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application.” MPEP § 713. Accordingly, the following Examiner’s guidance and suggested workflow maximizes this benefit to Applicant by: (1) avoiding back and forth telephone calls for scheduling, (2) permitting Examiner out-of-office notifications to the Applicant when emailing the agenda, and (3) permitting real-time document collaboration and screen sharing.
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. If an interview is needed more quickly than permitted by the AIR scheduling tool, note this in the AIR remarks for consideration. The Examiner routinely considers such urgent requests when practicable.
An agenda submitted when filing the AIR is strongly encouraged, because Examiners use agendas when determining whether to grant an interview. The AIR has character limits, so send the agenda contemporaneously to James.Miller1@uspto.gov and reference the AIR.
After-Final Interviews Requests are granted only at the Examiner’s discretion and only if disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. MPEP § 713.09. An advance agenda explaining how the interview advances prosecution—e.g., through targeted arguments, identified Examiner error, or proposed claim amendments—is strongly suggested.
For GRANTED requests, expect an email within two (2) business days confirming a date/time slot and collaboration tool access instructions. For DENIED requests, the record will include an explanation for the denial.
The examiner is generally available for interviews, Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
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 .
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 2–15 are pending and examined with Claim 2 in independent form.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 13 14, and 15 are presently amended.
No Claims are presently cancelled or added.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on Jul. 7, 2026, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Pat. Nos: 12,223,545; 11,922,502; 11,551,301; 11,138,665; and 10,776,868 have been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. All double patenting rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2026, are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment has been reviewed against Applicant’s Specification filed Dec. 24, 2024, [“Applicant’s Specification”] and accepted for examination.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Argument
Applicant states they have “amended the pending claims to more clearly recite that they are directed to statutory subject matter. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection.” Applicant’s Reply at 6.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's argument is conclusory and fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define an eligible invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims support Applicant’s assertion. The response does not identify which amended limitations allegedly cure the rejection, does not explain why the claims are longer recite an abstract idea, and does not address the Office Action’s § 101 analysis.
On the merits, the claims recite the commercial practice of rolling or changing a contract in a trading strategy, which the Specification characterizes as a “control roll.” Spec. ¶ 18. They do more than invoke trading as an environment. The strategy reconfiguration and “contract roll” are the claimed result. Therefore, the claims still recite a fundamental economic practice under the organizing human activity exception grouping. At Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant does not identify a technological improvement or explain how the amended claims achieve one. The amended claims themselves use a graphical user interface, nodes, and a graphical connector to present and alter a trading strategy, but they do not require a particular data structure, display rendering technique, or non-generic computer architecture. The specification describes the improvement to users (traders) not the computer itself. Spec. ¶ 89 (“When numerous trading strategies (e.g., spreads and/or algorithmic trading strategies, etc.) are configured, it can be difficult to know at a glance which of those trading strategies is using which contracts.”). Additionally, the Specification explains that “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,” which is merely automating with a computer the prior art manual process. Spec. ¶ 89. At Step 2B, Applicant does not contest the prior fining that the recited computer hardware/software features are conventional. Nor does Applicant identify an unconventional arrangement individually or produced by the combined result. The Specification describes generic hardware and permits implementation “alone or in combination in hardware, firmware, discrete logic, as a set of computer readable instructions stored on a tangible computer readable medium, and/or any combinations thereof, for example.” Spec. ¶ 137; see also ¶¶ 21, 66, 138. The amended claims remain functionally directed to displaying a graph, receiving user input, changing a strategy to contract association, and generating an updated strategy. The § 101 rejection is maintained.
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 computing device configured to:
[B] provide a user interface in a display of the 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;
[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; and
[F] automatically executing the updated strategy definition via an electronic exchange.
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 added Limitation F does not remove the underlying contract roll and strategy reconfiguration concept from the mental process grouping. It merely applies the resulting updated definition through an electronic exchange. 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: acomputing device; a user interface in a display of the 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; in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector; and automatically executing the updated strategy definition via an electronic exchange
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. Limitation F does not recite a particular order message structure, execution algorithm, routing mechanism, or other technical mechanism by which execution is performed or the training system improved. 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). The specification further describes the improvement to users (traders) not the computer itself. Spec. ¶ 89 (“When numerous trading strategies (e.g., spreads and/or algorithmic trading strategies, etc.) are configured, it can be difficult to know at a glance which of those trading strategies is using which contracts.”). Additionally, the Specification explains that “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,” which is merely automating with a computer the prior art manual process. Spec. ¶ 89. Further, the “visualization via the interface provides an at-a-glance view of those contracts that are shared among multiple trading strategies (e.g., spreads), for example.” Spec. ¶ 92.
Rather, the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Limitation F is likewise an instruction to apply to updated trading strategy definition using an electronic exchange because the claim recites only the result of automated execution, not how the exchange, gateway, or trading device accomplished that result.
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: acomputing device; a user interface in a display of the 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; in response to the repositioning of the graphical connector; and automatically executing the updated strategy definition via an electronic exchange), 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). Claim 3’s communication of the updated definition
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.
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 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).").
Prosecution Insights