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 .
Applicant filed claims 1-26 on April 14, 2025.
Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on August 6, 2025.
Applicant cancelled claims 1-26 and added 28 claims numbered 1-28.
Examiner objects to this numbering (see objection below). Examiner will refer to claims by the current claim number but will note what the claims should be properly numbered as (e.g., Claim 1 (should be numbered 27).
Claims 1-28 (should be numbered 27-54) are pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims “1-28” are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has improperly numbered the claims. After cancelling claims 1-26; the proper numbering would be to continue from the last claim, starting at Claim 27. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will treat the claims as if Applicant had properly numbered them from claim 27-54. As noted above Examiner will refer to claims by their current number to avoid confusion. Applicant should properly number the claims in future filings. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-24 and 26-28 (should be numbered 27-50 and 52-54) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as displaying trading information.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 1-26), machine (claims 27), and manufacture/product (claims 28).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1, 27, and 28 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
receiving a first order flow input for an asset of a trading account;
determining a long direction maximum margin and a short direction maximum margin based on a current position value and an available margin;
calculating a zero position margin based on the long direction maximum margin and the short direction maximum margin;
determining, through a dynamic margin position determination step, a first dynamic margin position associated with the trading account; and
displaying a dynamic margin position indicator including the zero position margin, the long direction maximum margin, the short direction maximum margin, and the first dynamic margin position,
wherein the dynamic margin position indicator is scaled based on the long direction maximum margin and the short direction maximum margin.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as commercial/legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of one or more processors, an advanced position interface, one or more tangible, non-transitory memories, instructions, one or more non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage mediums; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
receiving a first order flow input for an asset of a trading account;
displaying a dynamic margin position indicator including the zero position margin, the long direction maximum margin, the short direction maximum margin, and the first dynamic margin position,
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing of information and do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of one or more processors, an advanced position interface, one or more tangible, non-transitory memories, instructions, one or more non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage mediums; amount to no more than mere components to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitations of:
receiving a first order flow input for an asset of a trading account;
displaying a dynamic margin position indicator including the zero position margin, the long direction maximum margin, the short direction maximum margin, and the first dynamic margin position,
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing and do not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when clamed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See MPEP 2106.05(g). See Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0140-181] about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 2-5, 11-16, 19-22, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-5, 11-16, 19-22 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 6-10, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 26 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claim 1. In addition, the recite the additional elements of
receiving a third order flow input including the currency pair and an adjusted quantity
displaying the new position bar overlaid on the background bar based on the difference between the current position value and the new position value;
displaying the background bar;
display a zero indicator at the zero position on the background bar;
displaying the current position bar based on the magnitude of the current position value relative to the corresponding maximum margin value;
displaying an arrow on the background bar indicating the new position value;
displaying, in response to receiving an interaction with a guide button, a guide page by starting a web punch out process, such that the native app communicates with one or more web servers to display the guide page.
displaying, in response to receiving an interaction with a help request button, a help request page by starting a web punch out process, such that the native app communicates with one or more web servers to display the help request page.
receiving, through an authentication request, authentication data including an authentication token;
transmitting a verification link for mobile device verification as part of a device verification process;
wherein the portfolio drawer is displayed responsively to an interaction with at least one of a market view page, an accounts and settings page, or an instrument details page.
wherein a second dynamic margin position is displayed on the dynamic margin position indicator relative to the current position value and between the short direction maximum margin and the long direction maximum margin.
wherein the dynamic margin position indicator is dynamically displayed prior to the execution of the first order flow input or a second order flow input on a digital currency exchange.
receiving a second order flow input including a second quantity associated with the currency pair, the second quantity different from the first quantity;
This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, because as drafted the limitations are mere data gathering and storing of information. These limitations do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 6-10, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 26 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 2-24 and 26 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
Examiner has reviewed parent application 17/013170. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and cannot provide an art rejection at this time.
Claim 25 (should be numbered claim 51) does not have a subject matter eligibility rejection on file. Regarding subject matter eligibility. In view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and Applicant’s previous arguments in Application 17/013170, Applicant’s claims, while directed to an abstract idea, recite a practical application of the judicial exception. While the claims recite a judicial exception (determining margin positions), there is a practical application of the judicial exception. Applicant previously argued that the claims are similar to BASCOM and recite an ordered combination that improves technology by providing faster access to updated data. Examiner found this argument persuasive. Applicant’s current claim 25 recites a practical application of the abstract idea and thus amounts to eligible subject matter. The limitations present a technical solution to a technical problem. The limitations of claim 25 address the speed at which information is presented through technological means (as opposed to some generic recitation of “improved speed”). The claim requires that the invention determine that server maintenance has been completed before proceeding with an information exchange with the user. The claim also requires a determination of whether or not there has been a prior session with the user and where there has been a prior session, reopening of the state of the prior session rather than a new session in an initial state, thus minimizing network congestion. The claim goes beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, claim 25 is indicative of a practical application of the judicial exception and thus amount to eligible subject matter.
Examiner would like to cite, but not rely on the following references which generally teach the state of the art at the time of filing.
US-20020116317 A1 May, Richard Raymond
US-20050240511 A1 Chadwick, Christopher Nigel Peter
US-20060059064 A1 Glinberg; Dmitriy
US-20140108293 A1 Barrett; Brian
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Current claim 25 (should be numbered claim 51) is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,400,261. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of each other. It should be noted that claims 1-24 and 26-28 (should be numbered claims 27-50 and 52-54) are very close to also being subject to a nonstatutory double patenting rejection; but for the technical improvement claimed in claim 25. The difference between claim 25 and the ‘261 patent are authentication of the device/application and the repeating of the process for a second order flow. Claim 25 is broader and does not require these steps. It is an obvious variation to not require the act of authenticating a device/application running the underlying program. Additionally, it is an obvious variation to not require the repeating the underlying process a second time with an additional/second order flow. As such the claims are obvious variants of each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights