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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s 3/28/2025 filing.
Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined.
This action is non-final.
Objections
The drawings are objected to for issues pertaining to (a) legibility and (b) the drawings being in grayscale.
Claim 1 is objected to for a minor grammatical issue.
Claim Rejections
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for failing to provide sufficient written description of the structure to the claimed “…communication module” which invokes 112(f) claim interpretation.
Related to the above rejections, claims 1-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for the claim limitation “…communication module…” being indefinite, as no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for antecedent basis issue pertaining to “…the securities and futures company server…” claim limitation within line 18 of independent claim 1.
Claims 1-121 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner’s Note
Note on 112(f) Claim Interpretation
With respect to the 112(f) claim interpretation of “communication module” and the claims reciting multiple types of “…modules…”2, examiner notes the following:
All other modules other than the communication module are understood to correspond to logic stored within memory (e.g., computer code), per claim limitations: “the memory, configured to store an application program comprising the [A] program-trading connection module, the [B] screen interface generation module, the [C] total Delta value balance module, the [D] automatic order placement integration module and the [E] transaction data statistics module; and at least one processor is connected to the memory and the screen and configured to execute the application program.”
The communication module is required by the claims to be “configured to establish an Internet network connection and … [connect] to … [a] server”. Physical computer components are required to establish an internet connection.
The communication module is seemingly characterized in Applicant specification as a physical component in ¶11, ¶36, and Fig. 1, to one of ordinary skill in the art: “[¶11] … the device comprises: a communication module, configured to establish an Internet network connection… [¶36] The device 10, with an automated options trading program includes a screen 11, a communication module 12, a processor 13, and memory 14.”
PNG
media_image1.png
435
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is for at least the reasons above that the Examiner believes the “communication module” invokes 112(f) claim interpretation, while the other “modules” claimed have not invoked 112(f) claim interpretation.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because (a) figures 1 and 3 are illegible when reduced in size to two-thirds reproduction and (b) all figures (1-6) are in grayscale, not black and white – see 37 C.F.R. § 1.84: “Standards for drawings. … (1) … Black and white drawings are normally required … (k) Scale. The scale to which a drawing is made must be large enough to show the …[subject matter] without crowding when the drawing is reduced in size to two-thirds in reproduction”. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: minor grammatical issue. Specifically, claim 1 recites (underline emphasis added):
“…a transaction data statistics module, configured to receive transaction reports, which corresponding to transactions of orders, from the securities and futures company server,”
Examiner notes it appears that either (a) removal of “, which” or (b) addition of “…are…” would correct the grammar issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…a communications module, configured to establish an Internet network connection…” in independent claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Written Description
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “…a communications module, configured to establish an Internet network connection…”, and has been determined to invoke 112(f) claim interpretation. However, the specification does not provide sufficient corresponding structure that performs the claimed function of “…a communications module, configured to establish an Internet network connection…”. See MPEP § 2181: “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”
Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Indefinite Claim Limitations
Claim limitation “…a communications module, configured to establish an Internet network connection…” of independent claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, as no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See also MPEP §2181: “A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the written description fails to link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, or if there is no disclosure (or insufficient disclosure) of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. … When the examiner cannot identify the corresponding structure, material, or acts, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made.”
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claim 1 recites the limitation "…the securities and futures company server…" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test3. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
With respect Step 1 of Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims are directed to a device. Therefore, each of the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
Based upon consideration of all relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-12 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea of options trading. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
With respect Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis, claims 1-12 recite as a whole a method of organizing human activity because independent claim 1 recites:
“1. … dual-sell options (futures) balancing trading … [including] …
…[trading]… account information…transaction information statistics … [trading] parameter[s] … the account information … [including] an options product, one of the … parameter setting … comprises a total Delta value balance setting … which comprises a first total Delta balance value setting [in] column one, a first total Delta balance value setting [in] column two, a first buy-sell strike setting column, a first … price adjustment setting column, a first order quantity setting column, and a first … order time interval setting column;
…transaction data statistics … configured to receive transaction reports, which corresponding to transactions of orders, from the securities and futures company …, and perform statistics of transaction messages in the transaction reports to generate a total call Delta value, a total put Delta value, and a total Delta value;
a total Delta value balance … read the total Delta value and compare the total Delta value with values set in the first total Delta balance value setting column one and the first total Delta balance value setting column two,
wherein when the total Delta value is between the values, … [do] not execute action, and when the total Delta value exceeds a range defined by the values set in the first total Delta balance value setting column one and the first total Delta balance value setting column two, … transmit… an order to an … order placement integration … for placement based on the parameters set in the first buy-sell strike setting column, the first dynamic automatic price-adjustment setting column, the first order quantity setting column, and the first automatic order time interval setting column;
the … order placement integration … to place the order to the … [securities and futures company]; … .”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, these are recitations of fundamental economic practices of performing options trading. Additionally, under broadest reasonable interpretation, these are also recitation of commercial interactions of performing options trading. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong I: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception recited in independent claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test:
The additional elements “…A device with a fully automated AI … program…”, “…wherein the device comprises a memory and a screen and is connected to a server, and the device comprises: a communication module, configured to establish an Internet network connection and connected to the server; a program-trading connection module”, “a screen interface generation module, configured to generate a user interface on the screen, wherein the user interface at least comprises …[screens],”, “…a transaction data statistics module, configured to…”, “…[the securities and futures company] server…”, “…a total Delta value balance module…”, “…automatic… order placement integration module…”, “…automatic…”, “…the automatic order placement integration module, configured to place the order to the server…”, “…the memory, configured to store an application program comprising the program-trading connection module, the screen interface generation module, the total Delta value balance module, the automatic order placement integration module and the transaction data statistics module; …”, and “and at least one processor is connected to the memory and the screen and configured to execute the application program” of claim 1, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering the claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform an abstract business process (e.g., the recited options trading – see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2)). This stance is supported in view of Applicant’s specification describing the computer components (e.g., processor, memory, communication module) at a high degree of generality, such that the hardware computer components themselves are indistinguishable from those of a general-purpose computer.
The various claimed “modules” are described at a high degree of generality, are not limited to any particular physical or logical data structures, and are merely invoked at a high degree of generality to carry out the abstract idea recited – see MPEP §2106.05(f)(1): “[C]laim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’” and MPEP § 2106: “…The programmed computer or "special purpose computer" test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the "special purpose" of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions”.
The Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)). For example, the instant claims do not include any specific technical details as to how the claimed “…automated AI…” is specifically used on a technological level so as to perform futures balancing. As another example, the instant claims do not include any specific technical details as to how the various modules perform their corresponding functions drawn to the abstract idea, aside from stating that they are merely “…configured to...” (i.e., a non-descript configuration devoid of any particular technological details). This supports the aforementioned determination that the additional elements of the independent claims are merely applied, and is merely limiting the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1): “…claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’”.
An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). See the following:
MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015): “... our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
The examiner respectfully submits the following case law and MPEP cite are applicable to Applicant’s instant claims, and do not support a decision that the claims are patent-eligible:
Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2019): “The claims … do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information ….”
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “Here, the claims are clearly focused on … abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea”.
CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72, noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability.
MPEP § 2106.05(a): “…Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: … iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;”
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract options trading, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claims 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B, claims 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more, as its elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract options trading concept within a particular technological environment, absent of any particular technological details one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Even though claim 1 utilize a device, screens (e.g., computer interfaces), a communication module, and other modules (e.g., computer code), the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited, as even the ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Worded differently, the ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, as nothing in the claims indicate specific steps undertaken by the computer elements that are beyond conventional functionality of a generic computer being used at a high degree of generality, excepting the abstract idea it is merely used as a tool for – the claimed computer implementation itself is wholly generic when viewed in light of the technological environment of computers and the technical field of machine learning. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Hence, none of the elements of the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, the dependent claims have been given the full analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claim 2, it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein the first … price-adjustment setting column is… [used] to set an individual order price comprising at least an immediate transaction price, a fixed price, a middle easy price, and a middle difficult price”. The additional elements, “…dynamic automatic…”, and “…is configured to set…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the options trading to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 3, it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein the prices corresponding to the immediate transaction price, the fixed price, the middle easy price, and the middle difficult price are calculated based on the … quotation of the options product set in the … trading parameter setting column, and the order is … placed based on the values set in the first buy-sell strike setting column, the first order quantity setting column, and the first … order placement time interval setting column when an … order placement time set in the first … order placement time interval setting column is reached”. The additional elements, “…real-time…”, “…program…” and “…automatically…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the options trading to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 4, it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein the first buy-sell strike setting column comprises the options of at-the money, forced liquidation, 1 to 3 tick(s) in-the-money, and 1 to 10 tick(s) out-of-the-money, and the first buy-sell strike setting column represents the buy-sell strike of the order”. The claim does not recite any further additional elements. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 5, it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein the … trading parameter setting … further comprises an automatic retrial … and … [a] retry time interval … column, and when the … retrial … is selected, the … order placement integration … cancels the order when … [a] retrial time set in the … retrial time interval setting column is reached and the order is not executed”. Additionally, under step 2A Prong I, the claims recite an abstract commercial activity of a retrial by reciting: “[a] … retrial … and …[a] retry time interval…when the retrial is selected … retrial time set in the retrial time interval setting … is reached…”. The additional elements, “…program…”, “…screens…”, “…automatic…”, “…checkbox…”, and “…module…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the options trading to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 6, it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein …trading parameter setting … further comprises: a second total Delta balance value setting column one, a second total Delta balance value setting column two, a second buy-sell strike setting column, a second dynamic automatic price-adjustment setting column, a second order quantity setting column, a second … order time interval setting column; the total Delta value balance module reads the total Delta value and compare the total Delta value with values set in the second total Delta balance value setting column one and the second total Delta balance value setting column two, when the total Delta value is between the second values, no action is executed; when the total Delta value exceeds a range defined by the second values set in the second total Delta balance value setting column one and the second total Delta balance value setting column two, parameters set in the second buy-sell strike setting column, the second … price-adjustment setting column, the second order quantity setting column, the second … order time interval setting column are transmitted to the … order placement integration … to place the order.”. The additional elements, “…program-trading…”, “…screens…”, “…dynamic automatic…” and “… automatic…module” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the options trading to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 7, it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein each of the … trading parameter setting … further comprises at least one priority execution function option, and each of at least one priority execution function option corresponds to the buy-sell strike setting column, the … price-adjustment setting column, or a restriction … setting column.”. The additional elements, “…program…”, “…screens…”, “…dynamic automatic…” and “… function…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the options trading to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 7 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 8, it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein the at least one priority execution … option is an intelligent strike-shifting option, which is set by a first intelligent shift point setting, a second intelligent shift point setting, a maximum intelligent shift order quantity setting, wherein the corresponding restriction … is defined in a sell-point condition column, which specifies the selling condition as a point value; when a market price of the strike price set in the buy-sell position setting column is lower than the point value, the … order placement integration … shifts a … selection order position in the in-the-money direction of the strike price until the … selection order position exceeds the point value, for order placement, wherein when the intelligent strike-shifting option is selected, the … order placement integration … prioritizes shifting the order based on a point range defined by the first intelligent shift point setting and the second intelligent shift point setting to determine the program selection order position for order placement.”. The additional elements, “…function…”, “…automatic…module…”, “…program…”, and “…automatic…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the options trading to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 8, it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein the at least one priority execution … option is an intelligent strike-shifting option, which is set by a first intelligent shift point setting, a second intelligent shift point setting, a maximum intelligent shift order quantity setting, wherein the corresponding restriction … is defined in a sell-point condition column, which specifies the selling condition as a point value; when a market price of the strike price set in the buy-sell position setting column is lower than the point value, the … order placement integration … shifts a … selection order position in the in-the-money direction of the strike price until the … selection order position exceeds the point value, for order placement, wherein when the intelligent strike-shifting option is selected, the … order placement integration … prioritizes shifting the order based on a point range defined by the first intelligent shift point setting and the second intelligent shift point setting to determine the program selection order position for order placement.”. The additional elements, “…function…”, “…automatic…module…”, “…program…”, and “…automatic…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the options trading to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 9, it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein the priority execution … option is a priority closing in-the-money option, which is set by a priority closing in-the-money …, and a basic … option corresponding to the priority closing in-the-money checkbox is the buy-sell strike setting column, and a sell-point condition setting column, or an intelligent strike shifting option, and when the priority closing in-the-money option is selected, the … order placement integration … searches a prioritized position-closing position corresponding to an already executed position based on a sell-point condition set in the sell point condition setting column or the intelligent strike shifting option, to perform liquidation for meeting the sell-point condition.”. The additional elements, “…function…”, “…automatic…module…”, and “…checkbox…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the options trading to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 10, it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein the priority execution functional option is an intelligent order placement option, a basic function option corresponding to the priority execution functional option is a function of executing buy-call and buy-put actions set in a buy-call options points setting column and a buy-put option points setting column, and when the intelligent order placement option is selected, the … order placement integration … prioritizes executing the buy order based on the greater difference between the sell-call order quantity and sell-call order quantity and a difference between the sell-put order quantity and sell-call order quantity.”. The additional element “…automatic…module…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the options trading to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 11 it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…a selection function option comprising a multi-stage execution option, a full-stage execution option, or an … execution option; wherein when the multi-stage execution option is selected, the call-to-put ratio balance module executes balancing orders in two stages based on a range defined by the second call-to-put ratio balance value column one and the second call-to-put ratio balance value column two, and a range defined by the first call-to-put ratio balance value column one and the first call-to-put ratio balance value column two, respectively; wherein when the full-stage execution option is selected, the buy-sell ratio balance module executes balancing orders for the sell-call ratio at the same time based on a range defined by the second call-to-put ratio balance value column one and the second call-to-put ratio balance value column two and a range defined by the first call-to-put ratio balance value column one and the first call-to-put ratio balance value column two; wherein when the AI intelligent execution option is selected, the buy-sell ratio balance module places a balance order for the call-to-put ratio based on the first call-to-put ratio balance value one and the first call-to-put ratio balance value column two, and calculates a maximum sell order quantity and a maximum buy order quantity based on an order quantity to be balanced and a maximum order quantity”. The additional element “…AI intelligence…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the options trading to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 11 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 12 it recites further details of the abstract options trading, per reciting limitations “…wherein the …trading parameter setting … further comprises a changed-to-buy-order due to insufficient margin setting column, and when the margin balance falls below a value set in the changed-to-buy-order due to insufficient margin setting column, sell orders are not executed, but instead corresponding buy orders are executed to maintain the call-to-put ratio balance”. The additional elements “…program…”, and “…screen…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). As in the case of Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2019): “The claims … do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information ….”. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, these claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 12 is also not patent eligible.
No Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-12 overcome 35 U.S.C. 102/103 for the following reasons:
Based on prior art search results, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter when viewed as an ordered combination, and does not teach or otherwise suggest the entire ordered combination of claim limitations.
The closest prior art of record includes:
United States Patent Publication No. US 7251629 B1 (Marynowski), generally drawn to an automated trading system in an electronic trading exchange (title), where “…[t]he automated trading system may be capable of automatically submitting orders in connection with the underlying security in order to hedge part of the delta risk associated with the automated option trades”.
United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20100293110 A1 (Rosenthal), disclosing an options trading interface (title). At least the abstract, ¶92, Table 2, and ¶¶223-232, 271 are relevant.
United States Patent Publication No. US 8595123 B1 (Zerenner).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272-3955. 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.
/M.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 I.e., the subject matter claimed.
2 On page 6 of this Office Action.
3 See MPEP § 2106 I.