DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 3/26/25. Claim(s) 4, 7, and 10 is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) 12-20 is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification. Therefore, Claims 1-20 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/30/25 was/were considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application(s) filed in Italy on 3/26/24. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Arguments
There are no arguments.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 6-9 and 17-20 do/does not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention include
Intrinio published December 21, 2023 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited) in view of Trevathan et al. (US 2021/0272204 A1) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 12 above and further in view of Sproull published January 21, 2024 (reference W on the Notice of References Cited) for claim(s) 6-9 and 17-20.
Regarding claim 6 and 17, Sproull teaches
(original vs citation) the information technology infrastructure of claim 1, wherein the automatic trading robot is programmed to carry out trading operations according to:
a first predefined trading strategy which is configured to purchase two or more assets so that they are balanced with each other within the portfolio;
a second predefined trading strategy which is configured to check the differences between the assets and, if they exceed a certain threshold value, to carry out asset buying and selling operations in order to decrease these differences, thus rebalancing the investments in the various assets within of the wallet; and
a third predefined trading strategy which is configured to trade assets based on the market trend [see at least [pg 7] “Trading bots, essentially algorithms that execute trading decisions based on predefined rules, have come a long way since their inception in 1949. The advent of automated trading systems in the 90s marked a turning point, and after the 2008 financial crisis, algorithmic trading went mainstream, leading to significant advancements in software technologies and trading strategies.”;
[pg 3-4] 6 strategy types “Bot trading strategies are usually classified as follows:
Analysis Type Strategies
Entry-based Strategies
Market Analysis Strategies
Parameter-based Strategies
Time-based Strategies
Trading Type Strategies”;
[pg 5-6] “Advanced Trading Bot Strategies for 2024
Mean Reversion with Enhanced Analytics
Momentum Trading with Predictive Models: Enhanced with AI-driven predictive models, this strategy involves identifying and riding the momentum of market trends, adjusting in real-time to market shifts.
Arbitrage in a More Integrated Market”].
Claim(s) 7-9 and 18-20 is/are rejected because they depend on claim(s) 6 and 17.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action and those claims are 1, 10, and 20 based on “unit, configured” and “platform, configured”, see instant specification [0119-0120] for support. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 17-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 17-20 is/are rejected. Claim 6 and 17 recites the limitation “a second predefined trading strategy which is configured to check the differences between the assets and, if they exceed a certain threshold value, to carry out asset buying and selling operations in order to decrease these differences, thus rebalancing the investments in the various assets within of the wallet.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the bolded portion of the limitation(s) in the claim(s). Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim(s) 7-9 and 18-20 is/are rejected because they depend on claim(s) 6 and 17.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected. Claim 7 and 18 recites the limitation “wherein the first software module is executed in correspondence with the periodic capital payment which is carried out with the periodicity associated with the dollar cost averaging capital accumulation plan subscribed by the user by accessing the platform via the device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the bolded portion of the limitation(s) in the claim(s). Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected because they depend on claim(s) 7 and 18.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1, 10, and 12 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to online trading.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 10-11 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 1-9, 12-20 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 1: offering users, by an online intermediation platform, an investment method according to a dollar cost averaging capital accumulation plan,
using, by at least one user, a device to subscribe to the dollar cost averaging capital accumulation plan proposed by said platform,
directly sending, by said online intermediation platform, data and/or interface programs to a unit supplying an automatic trading robot in order to be able to carry out trading operations through said platform and/or by interfacing with said platform,
wherein the unit is configured, on the basis of one or more of (A) the data and (B) interface programs received directly from the online intermediation platform, to supply at least one robot capable of one or both of (i) carrying out automatic trading operations in or through said platform and (ii) interfacing with said platform according to said dollar cost averaging capital accumulation plan which has been subscribed to by the user.
Claim(s) 1 and 12: same analysis as claim(s) 10.
Claims 1 and 12 additionally: first means of communication between the online intermediation platform and the unit, configured to allow direct data communication between the platform and the unit, the first means of communication comprising one or more of a network interface module and a communication module,
second means of communication of the device with the online intermediation platform, configured to allow the user of the device to access and/or interface with the online intermediation platform, the second means of communication comprising one or more of a network interface module and a communication module.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1, 12, and 17 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with online trading.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include platform, device, robot, unit (claim(s) 1, 12, 17), modules (claim(s) 1, 12), processor (claim(s) 10), platform (claim 2-4, 7, 11, 13-14, 18), robot (claim 4-9, 15-20).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [pg 20 para 2]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [pg 20 para 2]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 10-11, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intrinio published December 21, 2023 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited) in view of Trevathan et al. (US 2021/0272204 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 10, and 12, Intrinio teaches trading of transferable securities, comprising:
(original vs citation) offering users, by an online intermediation platform, an investment method according to a dollar cost averaging capital accumulation plan,
(original vs citation) using, by at least one user, a device to subscribe to the dollar cost averaging capital accumulation plan proposed by said platform,
(original vs citation) directly sending, by said online intermediation platform, data and/or interface programs to a unit supplying an automatic trading robot in order to be able to carry out trading operations through said platform and/or by interfacing with said platform, {a unit supplying at least one automatic trading robot, first means of communication between the online intermediation platform and the unit, configured to allow direct data communication between the platform and the unit, the first means of communication comprising one or more of a network interface module and a communication module, - claim 1, 12}
(original vs citation) wherein the unit is configured, on the basis of one or more of (A) the data and (B) interface programs received directly from the online intermediation platform, to supply at least one robot capable of one or both of (i) carrying out automatic trading operations in or through said platform and (ii) interfacing with said platform according to said dollar cost averaging capital accumulation plan which has been subscribed to by the user [for the limitations above, see at least [pg 4-5] brokerage (Interactive Brokers, Alpaca, and TD Ameritrade) that let users perform some actions via an APIs of the brokerage “1. Interactive Brokers:
Interactive Brokers provides a feature-rich API for traders looking to automate their strategies. It's a favorite among professional traders and institutions. You can access most of what you need for simple strategies from Interactive brokers.
2. Alpaca:
Alpaca offers commission-free trading through their API, making it a great choice for developers building trading apps and algorithms.
3. TD Ameritrade:
TD Ameritrade's API provides access to their trading platform, allowing you to execute trades and access market data programmatically.”;
[pg 3-4] “Step 6: Connect to the Real Market
Once you're confident in your algorithm's performance, connect it to the real market using your API credentials. Start executing trades, monitoring positions, and reaping the benefits of automation.”].
Intrinio teaches online trading via a automation but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as online trading via a bot, Trevathan discloses
a computer-implemented method, implemented using digital processors, for online trading of transferable securities, comprising:
(original vs citation) offering users, by an online intermediation platform, an investment method according to a dollar cost averaging capital accumulation plan {at least one device managed by a corresponding user,
an online intermediation platform, - claim 1, 12} [for the limitations above, see at least [0115] devices include users and brokerage (intermediation platform) and brokerage can also be part of the cloud computing environment “The cloud computing environment 200 may be configured such that the cloud resources 205 provide computing resources to client devices 210 through a variety of service models, such as Software as a Service (SaaS), Platforms as a service (PaaS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), and/or any other cloud service models. The cloud resources 205 may be configured, in some cases, to provide multiple service models to a client device 210. For example, the cloud resources 205 can provide both SaaS and IaaS to a client device 210. The cloud resources 205 may be configured, in some cases, to provide different service models to different client devices 210. For example, the cloud resources 205 can provide SaaS to a first client device 210 and PaaS to a second client device 210. The client devices can be, e.g., a brokerage platform and/or the architecture shown in FIG. 3, amongst other clients.”;
[0037] “A broker integration component allows users to integrate the systems and processes described herein (referred to hereinafter also as a “trading platform”) with their external stock trading account at a traditional online stock brokerage house. This broker integration component allows the trading platform to invoke APIs of the external online stock broker's platform to execute stock trading actions on behalf of the user. The API is a set of programming code that queries data, parses responses, and sends instructions between one software platform, i.e., the systems and processes described herein which simplify stock market based investments, and another platform, i.e., brokerage account or other external components.”;
[0053] “The systems and processes described herein, e.g., opportunity engine, can use a business rules grammar for defining trades written in readable English, but created by either or both the AI and the user. By way of an example using dollar cost averaging, amongst other examples:”],
(original vs citation vs clarification: strikethrough of italicized original followed by plain lettering clarification in bold) using, by at least one user, a device to perform an action by said platform {second means of communication of the device with the online intermediation platform, configured to allow the user of the device to access and/or interface with the online intermediation platform, the second means of communication comprising one or more of a network interface module and a communication module, - claim 1, 12} [see at least
[0190-0191] “Example Interfaces of Trading Recipes
An example trading recipe is shown in FIG. 5. It should be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the interface, e.g., as implemented in the computing infrastructure of FIG. 1, can be provided by as a standalone system or implemented directly into a brokerage account.”;
Figs. 1-2 and [0102-0103, 0114-0116] devices include users and brokerage (intermediation platform) and brokerage can also be part of the cloud computing environment “As depicted in FIG. 2, the cloud computing environment 200 includes cloud resources 205 that are made available to client devices 210 via a network 215, such as the Internet.”],
directly sending, by said online intermediation platform, data and/or interface programs to a unit supplying an automatic trading robot in order to be able to carry out trading operations through said platform and/or by interfacing with said platform, {a unit supplying at least one automatic trading robot, first means of communication between the online intermediation platform and the unit, configured to allow direct data communication between the platform and the unit, the first means of communication comprising one or more of a network interface module and a communication module, - claim 1, 12}
wherein the unit is configured, on the basis of one or more of (A) the data and (B) interface programs received directly from the online intermediation platform, to supply at least one robot capable of one or both of (i) carrying out automatic trading operations in or through said platform and (ii) interfacing with said platform according to said dollar cost averaging capital accumulation plan which has been subscribed to by the user [for the limitations above,
the directly limitation is interpreted based on broadest reasonable interpretation of instant specification [0008],
see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0102-0103, 0114-0116] devices include users and brokerage (intermediation platform) and brokerage can also be part of the cloud computing environment “As depicted in FIG. 2, the cloud computing environment 200 includes cloud resources 205 that are made available to client devices 210 via a network 215, such as the Internet. The cloud resources 205 can include a variety of hardware and/or software computing resources, such as servers, databases, storage, networks, applications, and platforms. The cloud resources 205 may be on a single network or a distributed network. The cloud resources 205 may be distributed across multiple cloud computing systems and/or individual network enabled computing devices.”;
[0045] “An intelligent opportunity creator is artificial intelligence (AI) consisting of a group of intelligent agents that look at past opportunities, past trends in the markets, and additional data, such as news feeds, social sentiment, risk profiles, etc., to determine if there is a possible trading opportunity. If there is a recognized past pattern, such as a company that follows a cyclic pattern over multiple cycles or receives data that may drive stock price, it can use this data to create new opportunities with trading recipes or reload a past opportunity if there are trends that lead the system to determine the opportunity exists again.”;
[0049] the bot is part of the cloud computing thus a unit “An opportunity execution bot acts on behalf of the user once the user elects to invest in an opportunity as presented via a trading recipe. The opportunity execution bot (also referred to as the execution bot or broker bot) processes the trading steps included in the trading recipe that is part of the opportunity package, and executes them via the broker integration component. This process executes trades on stock or options or other types of trades in the user's external online brokerage account using the funds available in that account.”;
[0037] cloud computing connects to brokerage via an API “A broker integration component allows users to integrate the systems and processes described herein (referred to hereinafter also as a “trading platform”) with their external stock trading account at a traditional online stock brokerage house. This broker integration component allows the trading platform to invoke APIs of the external online stock broker's platform to execute stock trading actions on behalf of the user. The API is a set of programming code that queries data, parses responses, and sends instructions between one software platform, i.e., the systems and processes described herein which simplify stock market based investments, and another platform, i.e., brokerage account or other external components.”;
[0228] “In either of the case of a new or existing trading recipe, at step 816, the arbiter will request execution of the recipe using the machine learning, e.g., execution bots.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Intrinio with Trevathan to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Trevathan. Doing so would improve Intrinio’s (Intrinio) automated trading via use of robots and more explicit options for trading [see at least Trevathan [0002-0007] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Intrinio and b) Trevathan and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2 and 13, modified Intrinio teaches the information technology infrastructure of claim 1, .
Modified Intrinio teaches online trading via a automation but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as online trading via a bot, Trevathan discloses
wherein one or both of the interface data and interface programs comprise application program interfaces (APIs) of the online intermediation platform [see at least [0049] “An opportunity execution bot acts on behalf of the user once the user elects to invest in an opportunity as presented via a trading recipe. The opportunity execution bot (also referred to as the execution bot or broker bot) processes the trading steps included in the trading recipe that is part of the opportunity package, and executes them via the broker integration component. This process executes trades on stock or options or other types of trades in the user's external online brokerage account using the funds available in that account.”;
[0037] “A broker integration component allows users to integrate the systems and processes described herein (referred to hereinafter also as a “trading platform”) with their external stock trading account at a traditional online stock brokerage house. This broker integration component allows the trading platform to invoke APIs of the external online stock broker's platform to execute stock trading actions on behalf of the user. The API is a set of programming code that queries data, parses responses, and sends instructions between one software platform, i.e., the systems and processes described herein which simplify stock market based investments, and another platform, i.e., brokerage account or other external components.”;
[0115] “The cloud computing environment 200 may be configured such that the cloud resources 205 provide computing resources to client devices 210 through a variety of service models, such as Software as a Service (SaaS), Platforms as a service (PaaS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), and/or any other cloud service models. The cloud resources 205 may be configured, in some cases, to provide multiple service models to a client device 210. For example, the cloud resources 205 can provide both SaaS and IaaS to a client device 210. The cloud resources 205 may be configured, in some cases, to provide different service models to different client devices 210. For example, the cloud resources 205 can provide SaaS to a first client device 210 and PaaS to a second client device 210. The client devices can be, e.g., a brokerage platform and/or the architecture shown in FIG. 3, amongst other clients.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Intrinio with Trevathan to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Trevathan. Doing so would improve modified Intrinio’s (Intrinio) automated trading via use of robots and more explicit options for trading [see at least Trevathan [0002-0007] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Intrinio and b) Trevathan and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 15, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 10 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 11, modified Intrinio teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising creating, by the user an account only within the online intermediation platform, thereby not requiring any action from the user to register on the unit [see at least [pg 4-5] brokerage (Interactive Brokers, Alpaca, and TD Ameritrade) that let users perform some actions via an APIs of the brokerage thus no extra account “1. Interactive Brokers:
Interactive Brokers provides a feature-rich API for traders looking to automate their strategies. It's a favorite among professional traders and institutions. You can access most of what you need for simple strategies from Interactive brokers.
2. Alpaca:
Alpaca offers commission-free trading through their API, making it a great choice for developers building trading apps and algorithms.
3. TD Ameritrade:
TD Ameritrade's API provides access to their trading platform, allowing you to execute trades and access market data programmatically.”;
[pg 3-4] “Step 6: Connect to the Real Market
Once you're confident in your algorithm's performance, connect it to the real market using your API credentials. Start executing trades, monitoring positions, and reaping the benefits of automation.”]..
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intrinio in view of Trevathan as applied to claim(s) 1 and 12 above and further in view of Johnes published 2019 (reference V on the Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claim 3 and 14, modified Intrinio teaches the information technology infrastructure of claim 1, .
Modified Intrinio teaches online trading via a automation but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as online trading via a bot, Trevathan discloses
(original vs citation) wherein the interface data and/or programs include at least one API key authentication code which is required in order to be able to access the APIs of the online intermediation platform, in order to exchange and/or retrieve data through the APIs of the online intermediation platform and/or in order to perform the actions available through the APIs of the online intermediation platform [see at least [0049] “An opportunity execution bot acts on behalf of the user once the user elects to invest in an opportunity as presented via a trading recipe. The opportunity execution bot (also referred to as the execution bot or broker bot) processes the trading steps included in the trading recipe that is part of the opportunity package, and executes them via the broker integration component. This process executes trades on stock or options or other types of trades in the user's external online brokerage account using the funds available in that account.”;
[0037] “A broker integration component allows users to integrate the systems and processes described herein (referred to hereinafter also as a “trading platform”) with their external stock trading account at a traditional online stock brokerage house. This broker integration component allows the trading platform to invoke APIs of the external online stock broker's platform to execute stock trading actions on behalf of the user. The API is a set of programming code that queries data, parses responses, and sends instructions between one software platform, i.e., the systems and processes described herein which simplify stock market based investments, and another platform, i.e., brokerage account or other external components.”;
[0115] “The cloud computing environment 200 may be configured such that the cloud resources 205 provide computing resources to client devices 210 through a variety of service models, such as Software as a Service (SaaS), Platforms as a service (PaaS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), and/or any other cloud service models. The cloud resources 205 may be configured, in some cases, to provide multiple service models to a client device 210. For example, the cloud resources 205 can provide both SaaS and IaaS to a client device 210. The cloud resources 205 may be configured, in some cases, to provide different service models to different client devices 210. For example, the cloud resources 205 can provide SaaS to a first client device 210 and PaaS to a second client device 210. The client devices can be, e.g., a brokerage platform and/or the architecture shown in FIG. 3, amongst other clients.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Intrinio with Trevathan to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Trevathan. Doing so would improve modified Intrinio’s (Intrinio) automated trading via use of robots and more explicit options for trading [see at least Trevathan [0002-0007] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Intrinio and b) Trevathan and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Modified Intrinio teaches online trading via a automation but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as online trading via a bot, Johnes discloses
(original vs citation) wherein the interface data and/or programs include at least one API key authentication code which is required in order to be able to access the APIs of the online intermediation platform, in order to exchange and/or retrieve data through the APIs of the online intermediation platform and/or in order to perform the actions available through the APIs of the online intermediation platform [see at least [pg 1-2] “Step 1. Register your TradeSanta account.
Step 2. Connect your cryptocurrency exchange.
To start trading, you need to set up an Access Point. In order to do that you will need to have your Binance API keys. Go to the exchange and open the account menu at the top right of the screen. In the right-upper corner, in your account settings, find API Management page.
Step 3. Set permissions in your new API key
Click Edit restrictions next to your new API key and set the following permissions:
Enable Reading: on
Enable Spot & Margin Trading: on
IP address restrictions: Unrestricted (Less Secure)
Step 4. Insert the API and API secret into the Access Point fields on TradeSanta.
IMPORTANT: After your API key is connected to our access point, we will provide you with the list of IPs that you can insert in the IP address restrictions field and make your connection even more secured”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Intrinio with Johnes to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Johnes. Doing so would improve modified Intrinio’s (Intrinio) automated trading via use of robots and more explicit options for trading via improve security [see at least Johnes [0002-0007] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Intrinio and b) Trevathan and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intrinio in view of Trevathan as applied to claim(s) 1 and 12 above and further in view of Sproull published January 21, 2024 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claim 5 and 16, modified Intrinio teaches the information technology infrastructure of claim 1, .
Modified Intrinio teaches online trading via a automation but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as online trading via a bot, Sproull discloses
wherein the automatic trading robot is programmed to carry out trading operations according to at least two predefined trading strategies, wherein each of the two predefined strategies are different from each other [see at least [pg 7] “Trading bots, essentially algorithms that execute trading decisions based on predefined rules, have come a long way since their inception in 1949. The advent of automated trading systems in the 90s marked a turning point, and after the 2008 financial crisis, algorithmic trading went mainstream, leading to significant advancements in software technologies and trading strategies.”;
[pg 3-4] 6 strategy types “Bot trading strategies are usually classified as follows:
Analysis Type Strategies
Entry-based Strategies
Market Analysis Strategies
Parameter-based Strategies
Time-based Strategies
Trading Type Strategies”;
[pg 5-6] “Advanced Trading Bot Strategies for 2024
Mean Reversion with Enhanced Analytics
Momentum Trading with Predictive Models
Arbitrage in a More Integrated Market”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Intrinio with Sproull to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Sproull. Doing so would improve modified Intrinio’s (Intrinio) automated trading via use of robots and more explicit options for trading [see at least Sproull [pg 3-6] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Intrinio and b) Sproull and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim – KR 20230168384 A (relevant because it teaches trading via bots) as noted in IDS dated 3/30/25
Dave – KuCoin vs Pionex-Review and Comprehensive Comparison (relevant because it teaches automated trading bots) as noted in IDS dated 3/30/25 see NON-PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS item 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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 WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights