DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 3,5,10,12,17 and 19 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.
In claims 3,10 and 17 “variation data with a change” is vague and indefinite as is the step of
“encapsulating the variation data and a business logic used for list processing” – the examiner will interpret this as price feed
Claims 5,12, and 19 are not understood either in the light of the specification or the claim language on its own. The examiner has highlighted language that should be addressed.
storing into a scintillation dictionary the information update record for the target financial market in the financial market list in the list update event
starting a timer, and traversing in the scintillation dictionary, in response to the timer having expired, target finance with a changed financial market; and
obtaining a number of time slices corresponding to the target finance, and triggering the
list drawing instruction when the number of time slices corresponding to the target finance becomes zero.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the language reads on a transitory signal.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of drawing a market order axis. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons that follow. Statutory Classes The claims are directed to an apparatus a statutory class on invention. Judicial Exception
Claim 15 is the representative claim. The steps of the abstract idea include the nonbolded steps as follows;
obtaining a list drawing instruction triggered based on a list update event, the list update event comprising an information update record for a target financial market in a financial market list;
determining, based on the list drawing instruction, a target cell corresponding to the target financial market in the financial market list, and redrawing a target content of the target cellbased on the information update record of the target financial market by invoking a cell drawing device corresponding to the target cell; and
displaying the redrawn target content of the target cell in the financial market list
displayed on a display interface.
Claim 15 is directed to a device a statutory device, Claim 1 is directed to a method a statutory device. As such, the analysis proceeds to Step 2. The 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) sets forth a revised Step 2A analysis which includes a two-prong inquiry.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2A Prong One
Groupings of abstract ideas may include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. Here, representative independent claim 1 recites limitations relating to drawing a market trading axis.
The steps above describe a fundamental economic practice, commercial interactions, and managing interactions between people, and therefore a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, the limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human analog but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the recitation of the electronic device and the components therein, practically being performed by a human analog. “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea under prong one. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2A Prong Two
Prong two consists of determining whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
a processor; and
a memory having a computer program stored thereon,
wherein the processor is configured to invoke the computer program stored in the memory to perform a financial market list display method.
The additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to the abstract idea. The analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2B
Step 2B consists of determining whether the claim provides an inventive concept by considering whether the additional elements go beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106; see also USPTO: July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
In the case of the instant claims, the generic application of the computer processor similarly does not make the invention patent-eligible. Note that the disclosure recite general purpose consumer devices which are suitable to perform the claimed method (see eg. para. 0136). Moreover, the specification does not contribute any technically-specific computer algorithm or code, but rather merely states that the claimed steps may be performed by the generic modules with the expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of implementation without further instruction. The use of computing devices in this manner is merely what computers do, ie. performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, and automating mental tasks, and does not change the analysis. Whilst the implementation of such a solution may include the use of generic technical features, these merely serve their well-understood functions as would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art in the technical field under consideration. As such, the claims' invocation of the computer merely amounts to the limiting of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Here, the involvement of the generic computer products does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic consumer device functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components in this manner does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, as discussed above. The same analysis applies here in Step 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.
Independent claim 1 recites substantially similar limitations as independent claim 15 and is rejected accordingly. Dependent claims 2-7 and 16-20 further express the abstract idea and do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are for the same reason as the claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4,7,8-11,14 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1029(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kemp US Patent 7818247.
obtaining a list drawing instruction triggered based on a list update event (Fig. 3 – the commodities price axis and volumes), the list update event comprising an information update record for a target financial market in a financial market list ; p32
determining, based on the list drawing instruction, a target cell corresponding to the target financial market in the financial market list p39
, and redrawing a target content of the target cellbased on the information update record of the target financial market by invoking a cell drawing device corresponding to the target cell p44 ; and
displaying the redrawn target content of the target cell in the financial market list
displayed on a display interface p44
2) The financial market list display method according to claim 1, wherein:
the cell drawing device comprises a list data module and a list content drawing device p14;
said redrawing the target content of the target cell based on the information update record of the target financial market by invoking the cell drawing device corresponding to the target cell comprises:
invoking the cell drawing device corresponding to the target cell p83 ;
providing list data of the target financial market based on the list data module of the
cell drawing device, generating drawing content indication information based on an information update record in the list data of the target financial market p83 ;
and
redrawing, by using the list content drawing device of the cell drawing device, the target content of the target cell based on the drawing content indication information p83.
3. The financial market list display method according to claim 2, further comprising, prior to said providing the list data of the target financial market based on the list data module of the cell drawing device p84
determining, based on a data change condition within adjacent predetermined periods,
variation data with a change; p84
encapsulating the variation data and a business logic used for list processing, and generating a unified interface, to construct the list data module (the examiner interprets the variation data to be the changes to the inside market) , the list data module being
configured to provide the list content drawing device with all information needed for drawing (price and quantity).
4. The financial market list display method according to claim 2, further comprising,
prior to said redrawing, by using the list content drawing device of the cell drawing device,
the target content of the target cell based on the drawing content indication information (the examiner interprets drawing content and target content to be price and quantity):
encapsulating a display mode of all list cell content to construct the list content drawing device. Fig 3 and p84
6. The financial market list display method according to claim 5, further comprising,
prior to said obtaining the number of the time slices corresponding to the target finance:
reducing the number of time slices corresponding to the target finance.
7. The financial market list display method according to claim 1, wherein the target content comprises cell data and a cell background,
wherein the method further comprises, in response to said displaying the redrawn target content of the target cell:
when the target content indicates that a price of target finance increases, displaying, within a predetermined time period, cell data and/or a cell background of the target cell based on a first predetermined display mode, the first predetermined display mode comprising any one of a scintillation display, a background color change display, or a cell data color change display; and
when the target content indicates that the price of the target finance falls, displaying, within a predetermined time period, cell data and/or a cell background of the target cell based
on a second predetermined display mode, the second predetermined display mode comprising any one of a scintillation display, a background color change display, or a cell data color change display. P 21 and Claim 1.
Claims 8-11,14, 15-18 are the computer medium and computer device equivalents to the method claims 1-4 and 7 and are rejected based on the same cited sections and interpretations of the outstanding reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights