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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 7/31/26. Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-24 are pending, with Claims 1, 10, and 19 being independent. Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1, 9, 18, and 19 have been amended. Claims 21-24 have been added. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 24 is dependent on claim 1, however, if this was correct it would duplicate claim 6. The examiner presumes that claim 24 might be dependent on 19. Applicant should correct this minor typological error or eliminate duplication of claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 9-15, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are directed to a Market apparatus comprising a processor, prediction market apparatus comprising a processor and a method respectively which are statutory classes of invention.
(step 1 yes)
Here the has identified claim 19 as the independent claim.
These limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity and are directed to a fundamental economic practice, in this case providing security trading information. If a certain limitation under it’s broadest limitation covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice then it falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea.
The abstract limitations are;
providing a transaction interface, administrative controls operable to provide for adjustment of a market fulcrum, and a forecasting system; displaying in the transaction interface at least one of a quantity of stock, a currency, points, a value of stock, and tokens associated with a single action; and permitting buying or selling the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action in the transaction interface; and determining, with the forecasting system, a forecast based on the single action and the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with a single action
the forecasting system comprising a … configured to transform a set of actions including the single action involving the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action into predictive data; the forecast including a rationale for a trend, the rationale for the trend being based upon the … the forecast being updated based on a subsequent action received through the transaction interface.
The computer components arguably include “system” though it is not clear from applicant specification if the system is a computer system as the term is generically used in the specification to refer to the market prediction system which may also be a software system. The Interface likewise may be a computer hardware interface but, the term utilized in interface.
Here claim 19 is applying generic computing components to recite the abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Claims 1, and 10 are abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A prong 1) yes the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the additional elements of system and interface if they arguably are computers. The computer hardware/software are recited at a high level of generality, ie a generic processor performing a generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly these additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore claims 1, 10 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. Step 2A prong 2 No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately or as an ordered combination they do not add significantly more known as inventive concept to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application the additional elements of using a computer system or interface amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Applicant specification makes generic referrals to systems and interfaces that might be incorporated. However, MPEP 2106.05f where apply a computer as a tool is not indicative of specifically more. Accordingly these elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately or as an ordered combination. Thus claims 1, 10 and 19 are not eligible. (Step 2B no) The claims do not provide significantly more. By amendment, “machine learning” is added to the claim but, the machine learning is not utilized as an improvement to technology and is more of an appendage or “apply it” type of recitation.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9,11-15, and 18,20-24, do not further provide additional technical elements that might be able to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In summary claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-24 are not patent eligible as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Patent 7218325 to Buck in view of US Patent Publication to Horowitz 2009025981
As per claim 19 Buck discloses;
providing a transaction interface,
administrative controls operable to provide for adjustment of a market fulcrum, and a forecasting system; Buck(col. 2 lines 5-10, fulcrum appears to be the market status of the orders and relates to the transaction price, in Buck, col. 5 lines 15025, the market book and prices in the book are disclosed)
displaying in the transaction interface at least one of a quantity of stock, a currency, points, a value of stock, and tokens associated with a single action;
Buck (col. 5 lines 15-20, col. 7 lines 1-10 tradeable objects, per col 1 lines 35-40 almost anything is tradable, quantity…. “at least one is a choice” and associated with an action is reasonably open ended, how are the associated?)
and permitting buying or selling the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action in the transaction interface;
Buck (col. 7 lines 1-10 tradeable objects, per col 1 lines 35-40 almost anything is tradable)
and determining, with the forecasting system, a forecast based on the single action and the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with a single action. Buck col. 2 lines 5-10 forecast, col. 7
(trading market col. 5, further defined by stocks as an example of tradeable object, col. 1)
Here Horowitz teaches what Buck does not explicitly disclose;
Here in the context of forecasting and prediction markets which is alluded to in the claims,
Horowitz teaches a prediction market for example Horowitz(0113-115, a market for forecasting weather, market fulcrum is not given much weight as it appears to be more of intended use at this point) and transforming, with a machine learning algorithm in the forecasting system,
a set of actions including the single action involving the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action into predictive data; (here see buck for Stocks, one of is required)
Horowitz(0244-245, learning algorithm, here in the context of “stock” see Buck)
the forecast including a rationale for a trend, the rationale for the trend being based upon the machine learning algorithm, the forecast being updated based on a subsequent action received through the transaction interface.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the trading system of Buck with the forecasting of Horowitz for the motivation of “managing activities in which a financial return may be paid out based on a participants prediction” (0003)
Claims 1, 10 are similar to claim 19
As per claim 2, Buck discloses;
The prediction market apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action is determined based on a logarithmically spaced price ladder for the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action; and wherein the processor is configured to automatically update the logarithmically spaced price ladder.
Buck (col. 2 lines 50- col. 3 lines 10, log scale approach)
Claims 11 and 20 are similar to claim 2
As per claim 3, Buck discloses; The prediction market apparatus of claim 1 wherein the administrative controls are configured to provide for selective adjustment of sensitivity. (0189)
Buck (col 10 lines 1-10 the graphs can be scaled)
Claim 12 is similar to claim 3
As per claim 4, Buck does not explicitly disclose what Horowitz teaches;
The prediction market apparatus of 1 The prediction market apparatus of wherein the administrative controls are configured to provide for selective adjustment of liquidity.
Horowitz (0546 discloses liquidity)
The motivation for the combination is similar to that provided in claim 1, 10 and 19.
Claim 13 is similar to claim 4
As per claim 5 Buck discloses;
the prediction market apparatus of claim 1 wherein the administrative controls are configured to provide for selective adjustment of window. Buck(Col. 7 lines 50-60 resizing windows)
Claim 14 is similar to claim 5.
As per claim 6,
Buck discloses; The prediction market apparatus of claim 1 wherein a starting point for the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action is pre-defined.
(Col. 5, lines 15-25, the price could be filled from the exchange)
As per claim 9, Buck does not explicitly disclose what Horowitz teaches;
The prediction market apparatus of claim 1 wherein the forecast includes at least one of a growth likelihood, a segment, a timing, and a rationale for a trend; wherein the at least one of the growth likelihood, the segment, the timing, and the rationale for the trend is calculated based upon the machine learning algorithm; and wherein the forecast is updated based on a subsequent action received through the transaction interface.
Horowitz(0244-245, learning algorithm)
The motivation for the combination would be similar to that provided for claim 1, 10 and 19.
Claim 18 is similar to claim 9
Claim 21 is similar to claim 3
Claim 22 is similar to claim 4
Claim 23 is similar to claim 5
Claim 24 is similar to claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 7/31/26. Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-24 are pending, with Claims 1, 10, and 19 being independent. Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1, 9, 18, and 19 have been amended. Claims 21-24 have been added. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final rejection.
Applicant effectively rolled up claims 7-8 and 16-17 into amended independent Claims 1 and 10, respectively. Applicant has similarly amended independent Claim 19. Further, Applicant has amended dependent Claims 9, 18 for consistency. Applicant submits that all claims are patentable, presents arguments and amendments herein supporting such patentability, and respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw all pending rejections and allow all claims.
Redacted a summary of the invention; In net, to the examiner the claims as laid out are not defining the single action and the forecast or rationale for the trend basis. Machine learning is utilized but, currently in an “apply it” type of role.
II. The Amended Claims Are Patentable
A. The Amended Claims Are Directed to Patent Eligible Subject Matter and Overcome the §101 Rejection
The Examiner rejected former Claims 1-20 as being directed to ineligible subject matter, in particular, an abstract idea. In particular, the Examiner noted:
these limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity and are directed to a fundamental economic practice, in
this case, providing security trading information. If a certain limitation under its broadest limitation covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice then it falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Office Action at 2-3.
As noted in the telephonic interview, Applicant submits that the amended claims recite patent-eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is either as a whole not directed to an abstract idea or is an abstract idea integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. In particular, the claimed invention recites:
provid[ing] a transaction interface, administrative controls operable to provide for adjustment of a market fulcrum, and a forecasting system , and
display[ing] in the transaction interface at least one of a quantity of stock, a currency, points, a value of stock, and tokens associated with a single action ; and
the forecasting system configured to determine a forecast based on the single action and the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action;
the forecasting system comprising a machine learning algorithm configured to transform a set of actions including the single action involving the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action into predictive data ;
the forecast including a rationale for a trend, the rationale for the trend being based upon the machine learning algorithm , the forecast being updated based on a subsequent action received through the transaction interface .
Amended Claim 1).
Applicant submits that when these new claim features and the rest of the claim are taken as a whole, amended independent Claim 1 is no longer directed to an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis. MPEP §2106.
Rather, as noted in the USPTO PEG UPDATE 2019, when evaluating whether the claimed invention is an abstract idea, a claim with limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind is not an abstract idea. Further, “[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations”. USPTO PEG UPDATE 2019 at 7, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf.
Also, the USPTO has cautioned Examiners that: “a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)”.
Memorandum for Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 2, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf. Indeed, the human mind is not equipped to provide
“the forecasting system comprising a machine learning algorithm configured to transform a set of actions including the single action involving the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action into predictive data”, particularly one that continuously updates “based on a subsequent action received through the transaction interface”. Because of this, Applicant submits that the amended claims are patent eligible under step 2A, prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis.
Here the “performed in the mind” aspect of the guidance is more directed to whether the machine learning for example is being improved or doing something that cannot be performed manually. While applicant may argue that these steps may not be performed in the mind, the current claims are at a level of generality such as “based on machine learning” “configured to transform a set of actions including a single action”. However, no specific action or machine learning is claimed.
Here the process is argued to transform information into predictive data. The forecast is then updated based on a subsequent action. (in summary, directed to the machine learning)
Again “subsequent action” could be just about anything as claimed.
However the machine learning output is at the very best abstract. No specific result is claimed. Transforming information into predictive data and then updating based on a subsequent action is so broadly general that one might be able to broadly do this in the mind. It is noted as well that “the single action” involves at least one of quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of the stock, and the tokens associated with the single action. Thus broadly the quantity of stock for example might be the predictive data for example.
Assuming for arguendo that amended Claim 1 recites an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Applicant submits this claim is patent eligible under step 2A, prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis. See MPEP §2106. With regards to the former claims, the Examiner noted:
[t]he judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of system and interface if they arguably are computers. The computer hardware/software are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., a generic processor performing a generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality.
Applicant submits that amended Claim 1, for example, applies the abstract idea in a practical application that is significantly more than the abstract idea exception. Here, the practical application is a prediction market apparatus interacting with users and providing market forecasts based upon a machine learning algorithm. The MPEP recites:
[p]rong Two analysis considers the claim as a whole. That is, the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception need to be evaluated together to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Applicant submits that taking the amended independent claims as a whole, the claimed invention has been integrated into a practical application of a prediction market apparatus with a transaction interface. Moreover, the claimed invention does not represent “a drafting effort designed to monopolize or preempt the judicial exception.” 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence at §3(A)(2) available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-07-17/pdf/2024-15377.pdf.
Differently, the claimed invention provides an improved prediction market apparatus with a machine learning algorithm configured to transform a set of actions including the single action involving the at least one of the quantity of stock, the currency, points, the value of stock, and the tokens associated with the single action into predictive data.
Accordingly, it is submitted that amended independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to patentable eligible subject matter. Their respective dependent claims, which recite yet further distinguishing features, are also directed to patentable eligible subject matter and require no further discussion herein.
Here no practical application is contemplated. The drafting effort would monopolize analysis because it’s so generally directed to machine learning. (see above)
B. The Amended Claims Are Patentable and Overcome the §103 Rejection
The Examiner rejected all of the claims over Buck in view of Horowitz et al. Buck discloses a graphical display for electronic trading that allows a trader to view both detailed recent market activity and longer-term historical context within the same chart. The display uses multiple axis regions with different scales including logarithmic scaling to enlarge recent data while compressing older data. The display may show prices, quantities, volume, and other information concerning a tradable object received from an electronic exchange.
Horowitz et al. discloses a computer-implemented financial market in which participants purchase financial products corresponding to predicted outcomes of future natural events with returns determined according to the event that ultimately occurs. Horowitz et al. discloses participant interfaces and an adaptive control algorithm that automatically sets and updates product prices or outcome probabilities in response to successive purchases, thereby using participant transactions to aggregate the market’s collective beliefs regarding future outcomes.
Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims overcome the current rejection. Firstly, the applied combination of prior art references fails to disclose or fairly suggest the administrative controls operable to provide for adjustment of a market fulcrum, as recited in each amended independent claim. Rather, Buck discloses graphical scaling and display controls, and Horowitz et al. fails to make up for this deficiency. Secondly, the applied combination of prior art references fails to disclose or fairly suggest the rationale for the trend being based upon the machine learning algorithm, as recited in each amended independent claim. In contrast, Horowitz et al. discloses adaptive or learning algorithm updates probabilities.
Thirdly, the applied combination of prior art references fails to disclose or fairly suggest the forecast being updated based on a subsequent action received through the transaction interface, as recited in each amended independent claim. Differently, Horowitz et al. discloses updating pricing probabilities.
Accordingly, because of any one of the above noted deficiencies, it is submitted that amended independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 are patentable over the prior art. Their respective dependent claims, which recite yet further distinguishing features, are also patentable over the prior art and require no further discussion herein.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are argued for the same reasons. However, market fulcrum, is essentially the term has several meanings such as critical turning point. However, in applicant specification, 0105 the fulcrum is “the starting price around which the market maker places it’s orders”. The examiner’s interpretation is that it’s basically market price as claimed.
From the internet “a market fulcrum is a critical turning point or pivot point …. Where a financial market, asset price or economic trend changes direction…. Also where buying=selling.
Col. 5 of Buck appears to disclose the market pricing at each level, buys and sells and quantity. If applicant were to further claim details around the fulcrum, the applicant might be more persuasive.
Conclusion
A prediction market system using SIPS and generalized LMSR for collective-knowledge-based demand forecasting, IP.com 2010
Design of the electricity market monitoring system, IEEE 2008
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 BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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 W Anderson can be reached at 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights