DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 19/005,830 (12/30/24) filed on 06/24/26.
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 - 9 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 9 and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a process (i.e., method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves displaying associated with exchange of a first crypto token and comprising a first set of fields associated with a first exchange order for the first crypto token and a first dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; displaying, in response to receiving at least a first user input, associated with exchange of a second crypto token and comprising a second set of fields associated with a second exchange order for the second crypto token and a second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; displaying, in response to receiving one or more second user inputs, a list of entries for a plurality of crypto tokens including the first crypto token and the second crypto token; and displaying, in response to receiving at least a third user input, associated with exchange of the second crypto token and comprising the second set of fields associated with the second exchange order for the second crypto token and the second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (displaying interface pages associated with exchange of crypto tokens); commercial or legal interactions (displaying interface pages associated with exchange of crypto tokens); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (displaying, receiving).
The mere nominal recitation of “a mobile application executing on a user device” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to displaying associated with exchange of a first crypto token and comprising a first set of fields associated with a first exchange order for the first crypto token and a first dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; displaying, in response to receiving at least a first user input, associated with exchange of a second crypto token and comprising a second set of fields associated with a second exchange order for the second crypto token and a second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; displaying, in response to receiving one or more second user inputs, a list of entries for a plurality of crypto tokens including the first crypto token and the second crypto token; and displaying, in response to receiving at least a third user input, associated with exchange of the second crypto token and comprising the second set of fields associated with the second exchange order for the second crypto token and the second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a mobile application executing on a user device”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “a mobile application executing on a user device”, the claim encompasses the user manually displaying associated with exchange of a first crypto token and comprising a first set of fields associated with a first exchange order for the first crypto token and a first dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; displaying, in response to receiving at least a first user input, associated with exchange of a second crypto token and comprising a second set of fields associated with a second exchange order for the second crypto token and a second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; displaying, in response to receiving one or more second user inputs, a list of entries for a plurality of crypto tokens including the first crypto token and the second crypto token; and displaying, in response to receiving at least a third user input, associated with exchange of the second crypto token and comprising the second set of fields associated with the second exchange order for the second crypto token and the second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of “a mobile application at a mobile device”.
The mere nominal recitation of “a mobile application executing on a user device” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “a mobile application executing on a user device”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “displaying” steps being via “a first user interface page”, “second user interface page” and “a third user interface page”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of “receiving inputs” “at the first user interface page” and “at the third user interface page”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of (a) data display (e.g., “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering user input data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “mobile application at a mobile device” that performs the step(s) is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). At best the “mobile application at a mobile device” is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 12/30/24 does not provide any indication that “a mobile application at a mobile device” is anything other than a generic off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Thomas, US Pub. No. 2025/0110804; Larimer, US Pub. No. 2025/0371618; and Foura, Int. Pub. No. WO 2024/108093. See at least, Thomas, abstract, [0011] [0014] [0020] [0028] [0032] [0046] [0059] [0065] [0073] [0074]. See at least, Larimer, abstract, [0004] [0005] [0006] [0015] [0020]. See at least, Foura, abstract, [0004] [0019]. Thomas, Larimer and Foura operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data display (e.g., “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant (a) data display (e.g., “displaying”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim(s), and thus the claim(s) are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 9 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. With respect to dependent claims 6 and 7, performing tasks such as (c) data processing (e.g., “removing”, “resizing etc. step(s) as claimed) is similarly well-understood, routine and conventional. Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here).
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 17 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The components (e.g., “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “one or more processors”) described in independent non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 17, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product (non-transitory computer-readable medium) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 18 - 20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 and 18 (claims 19 and 20 based on their dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re Claims 17 and 18 (claims 19 and 20 based on their dependency): The preamble of the claims recite, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to:”. The body of the claims recite one or more steps performed by “a mobile application executing on a user device”. The claims are indefinite because the language suggests two alternate, contradictory interpretations regarding who/ what is performing the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention (i.e., “one or more processors”; “user device”).
Response to Arguments
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to placing an order based on displayed market information (i.e., displaying interface pages associated with exchange of crypto tokens).
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to placing an order based on displayed market information (i.e., displaying interface pages associated with exchange of crypto tokens). Placing an order based on displayed market information (i.e., displaying interface pages associated with exchange of crypto tokens) involves “sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., displaying, receiving, etc.).
In Interval Licensing (Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the patentee acquired content, controlled the timing of the display of the acquired content, displayed the content, and acquired an updated version. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The court found it "pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation”. 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559. Similarly, applicant’s receipt of user inputs; and display of interface pages associated with exchange of crypto tokens including a dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of crypto tokens similarly points to nontechnical human activity that historically occurred by traders in exchange pits.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “displaying, by the mobile application executing on the user device and in response to receiving at least a first user input at the first user interface page, a second user interface page associated with exchange of a second crypto token and comprising a second set of fields associated with a second exchange order for the second crypto token and a second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; displaying, by the mobile application executing on the user device and in response to receiving one or more second user inputs, a third user interface page comprising a list of entries for a plurality of crypto tokens including the first crypto token and the second crypto token; and displaying, by the mobile application executing on the user device and in response to receiving at least a third user input at the third user interface page, the second user interface page associated with exchange of the second crypto token and comprising the second set of fields associated with the second exchange order for the second crypto token and the second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token.”) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 1 - 9 and 17 - 20 suggest the steps or acts occur on a computer (i.e., a “mobile application executing on a user device” in method claims 1 - 9; and a “non-transitory computer-readable medium ….. executable by one or more processors”/ “mobile application executing on a user device” in non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 17 - 20), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it (a) provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (e.g., “These features improve the functioning of a mobile application system by enabling complex, dynamically updated trading information to be presented and navigated on a mobile device with limited screen real estate ….” See pg. 14 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 06/24/26); and (b) provides a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g., “….. addresses the specific technical problem of presenting complex, dynamically updated trading information on a mobile device with limited screen real estate.” See pg. 16 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 06/24/26). The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention (a) provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; and (b) provides a technical solution to a technical problem suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
The “improvements”/ “solutions” are really just the benefits of automation itself. The technology is merely serving as a “proxy” for human operators (i.e., users (e.g., “traders”. See para. [0017] of applicant’s specification as filed 12/30/23.)) that may perform similar functions. In fact, the use of technology as a tool or aid is evident from the prosecution where all decision making regarding what is displayed and how it is displayed comes from the human operator. For example, para. [0039] [0061] of applicant’s specification as filed 12/3024 suggests the displayed results are the byproduct of what the user decides to “toggle” or their “selection”. For example, independent claims 1 and 17 suggests all that is claimed is a series of displayed outputs (e.g., (a) “displaying ….. a second user interface page associated with exchange of a second crypto token and comprising a second set of fields associated with a second exchange order for the second crypto token and a second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token”; (b) “displaying ….. a third user interface page comprising a list of entries for a plurality of crypto tokens including the first crypto token and the second crypto token”; and (c) “displaying ….. the second user interface page associated with exchange of the second crypto token and comprising the second set of fields associated with the second exchange order for the second crypto token and the second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token”) responsive to user inputs (e.g., (a) “in response to receiving at least a first user input”; (b) “in response to receiving one or more second user inputs”; and (c) “in response to receiving at least a third user input”). There is nothing in applicant’s claimed invention about how the mobile device itself accomplishes the result.
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, many of the features applicant relies upon are “insignificant”. For example, they amount to “necessary data gathering and outputting” (e.g., “displaying, by a mobile application executing on a user device, a first user interface page associated with exchange of a first crypto token and comprising a first set of fields associated with a first exchange order for the first crypto token and a first dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token;
displaying, by the mobile application executing on the user device and in response to receiving at least a first user input at the first user interface page, a second user interface page associated with exchange of a second crypto token and comprising a second set of fields associated with a second exchange order for the second crypto token and a second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; displaying, by the mobile application executing on the user device and in response to receiving one or more second user inputs, a third user interface page comprising a list of entries for a plurality of crypto tokens including the first crypto token and the second crypto token; and displaying, by the mobile application executing on the user device and in response to receiving at least a third user input at the third user interface page, the second user interface page associated with exchange of the second crypto token and comprising the second set of fields associated with the second exchange order for the second crypto token and the second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token.”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., (a) “in response to receiving at least a first user input”; (b) “in response to receiving one or more second user inputs”; and (c) “in response to receiving at least a third user input”); analyzing it; and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g., (a) displaying ….. a first user interface page associated with exchange of a first crypto token and comprising a first set of fields associated with a first exchange order for the first crypto token and a first dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; (b) “displaying ….. a second user interface page associated with exchange of a second crypto token and comprising a second set of fields associated with a second exchange order for the second crypto token and a second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token”; (c) “displaying ….. a third user interface page comprising a list of entries for a plurality of crypto tokens including the first crypto token and the second crypto token”; and (d) “displaying ….. the second user interface page associated with exchange of the second crypto token and comprising the second set of fields associated with the second exchange order for the second crypto token and the second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token”) merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention applies the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (e.g., “….. particular architectural arrangement of mobile UI pages …..”. See pg. 14 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 06/24/26) suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, several factors are relevant such as the particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus; whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method; and whether it’s involvement is extra-solution activity or a field of use.
First, when looking at the particularity or generality of a machine or apparatus the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is important. In the instant case most or all of the steps or acts are performed by a general purpose computer (i.e., a “mobile application executing on a user device” in method claims 1 - 9; and a “non-transitory computer-readable medium ….. executable by one or more processors”/ “mobile application executing on a user device” in non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 17 - 20) that applies the judicial exception by use of conventional computer functions. This does not qualify as a particular machine. This rationale also applies to any suggestion that there is a particular machine because the machine is programmed (i.e., “Moreover, the claimed mobile user interface architecture is specifically tied to the constraints and characteristics of a mobile application system, including the limited display area of a mobile device-thus, the mobile application is not invoked as a generic tool. "). Emphasis added.” See pg. 15 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 06/24/26.).
Second, although the claim invention recites computers or other machinery (i.e., a “mobile application executing on a user device” in method claims 1 - 9; and a “non-transitory computer-readable medium ….. executable by one or more processors”/ “mobile application executing on a user device” in non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 17 - 20), the computers or other machinery are used “merely as a tool to perform an existing process” (e.g., placing an order based on displayed market information (i.e., displaying interface pages associated with exchange of crypto tokens)). This does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Third, the “mobile application executing on a user device” does not impose meaningful limitations on the claim. The “extra-solution activity” is limited to (a) “data gathering and outputting” (e.g., “displaying, by a mobile application executing on a user device, a first user interface page associated with exchange of a first crypto token and comprising a first set of fields associated with a first exchange order for the first crypto token and a first dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; displaying, by the mobile application executing on the user device and in response to receiving at least a first user input at the first user interface page, a second user interface page associated with exchange of a second crypto token and comprising a second set of fields associated with a second exchange order for the second crypto token and a second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token; displaying, by the mobile application executing on the user device and in response to receiving one or more second user inputs, a third user interface page comprising a list of entries for a plurality of crypto tokens including the first crypto token and the second crypto token; and displaying, by the mobile application executing on the user device and in response to receiving at least a third user input at the third user interface page, the second user interface page associated with exchange of the second crypto token and comprising the second set of fields associated with the second exchange order for the second crypto token and the second dynamically updated order book associated with exchange of the first crypto token.”). Furthermore, applicant relies upon a “field-of-use” line of reasoning (i.e., exchange, trading environment application). Thus, the associated limitations cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.
See also, MPEP §2106.05(b).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, 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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights