DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 19/295,827 entitled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRADES PRICED RELATIVE TO A REFERENCE BENCHMARK VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH AN UNDERLYING INDEX FUTURE" filed on June 5, 2026, with claims 1 to 16 pending.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, and 11 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 5, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 27, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 11, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-16 are directed to a method/process, machine/apparatus, (article of) manufacture, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“receiving, …trade information associated with a trade initiated in a first time zone and priced relative to a reference benchmark value associated with multiple time zones, the trade information comprising a basis agreed to by parties of the trade a predetermined time prior to a determination of a final value of the trade:
storing, …the trade information as a record among one or more data tables …the record including a related data field indicating the trade is in a pending state;
communicating, … with at least one external data source comprising a third-party data service and receiving components of the reference benchmark value associated with the multiple time zones from the at least one external data source, each of the components comprising an official closing index level of a respective external market located in a respective one of the multiple time zones, received at a specific time point associated with a respective one of the multiple time zones;
delaying, … execution of the trade while the components of the reference benchmark value are received from the at least one external data source via an electronic network;
marking, …the trade to market at a closing basis settlement value detecting…availability of each of the components of the reference benchmark value from the at least one external data source, each component becoming available at a different time point corresponding to a closing of a respective external market in a respective one of the multiple time zones; responsive to detecting that all components corresponding to all of the multiple time zones have been received,
automatically determining, … the reference benchmark value based on all of said components of the reference benchmark value associated with the multiple time zones;
retrieving, … the trade information associated with the trade from the record among the one or more data tables;
upon expiration of the predetermined time, determining, … the final value of the trade based on the automatically determined reference benchmark value associated with the multiple time zones:
assigning, … the final value of the trade to the retrieved trade information, and thereby creating an executable trade and updating the related data field to indicate the trade is no longer in the pending state, the final value comprising a final price and a quantity;
automatically creating, … responsive to the executable trade, a derivative on an underlying index future priced according to at least one market in at least one of the multiple time zones, the derivative settling to a normalized value and automatically creating a position in the underlying index future having an exchange delivery settlement price calculated based on the automatically determined reference benchmark value;
reporting, … the executable trade to a reporting platform;
clearing, …the trade; and
arranging, … for the trade to physically settle into the underlying index future.”
These limitations clearly relate to generating financial transactions between traders. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructing to “determining, …the reference benchmark value” and “creating…a derivative on an underlying index future priced according to at least one market” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[by an electronic platform comprising non-transitory memory and at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions stored in the non-transitory memory,][by an electronic platform][of at least one database] [a plurality of databases, the plurality of databases comprising a settlement database, a trade database, and a reporting database]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, and networking technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0048] The embodiments described herein may be implemented using any number of different hardware configurations. ... platform 1500 comprises a processor 1510, such as one or more commercially available Central Processing Units (CPUs)
[0049] The storage device 1530 may comprise any appropriate information storage device, including combinations of magnetic storage devices (e.g., a hard disk drive), optical storage devices, mobile telephones, vehicle computers, and/or semiconductor memory devices.
[0056] Although specific hardware and data configurations have been described herein, note that any number of other configurations may be provided in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claims 2-3: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 4:
“by the electronic platform”: merely applying computer processing, networking, and display technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claims 5-10: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
Claim 11:
“by the plurality of databases”: merely applying computer storage technologies as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 12-16: (none found: does not include additional elements and merely narrows the abstract idea)
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads:
[0048] The embodiments described herein may be implemented using any number of different hardware configurations. ... platform 1500 comprises a processor 1510, such as one or more commercially available Central Processing Units (CPUs)
[0049] The storage device 1530 may comprise any appropriate information storage device, including combinations of magnetic storage devices (e.g., a hard disk drive), optical storage devices, mobile telephones, vehicle computers, and/or semiconductor memory devices.
[0056] Although specific hardware and data configurations have been described herein, note that any number of other configurations may be provided in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak (“FAIR VALUE MODEL FOR FUTURES”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20100125535 A1), in view of O'shea (“PORTFOLIO INVESTMENT GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE AND FINANCIAL FUND ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM”, Canadian Publication Number: CA 2369296 A1),in view of Wilson (“RATE-NEGOTIATED, STANDARDIZED-COUPON FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT AND METHOD OF TRADING”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20120296793 A1),in view of Waelbroeck (“BLOCK TRADING SYSTEM AND METHOD PROVIDING PRICE IMPROVEMENT TO AGGRESSIVE ORDERS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20040210511 A1),in view of Grody (“CENTRAL COUNTERPARTY FOR DATA MANAGEMENT”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20110071958 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Nowak teaches,
receiving, by an electronic platform comprising non-transitory memory and at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions stored in the non-transitory memory, trade information associated with a trade initiated in a first time zone and priced relative to a reference benchmark value associated with multiple time zones, the trade information comprising a basis agreed to by parties of the trade a predetermined time prior to a determination of a final value of the trade:
(Nowak [0005] fund trade orders received during regular business hours are executed the next business day, at the NAV calculated at the close of business on the day the order was received.....this practice can create problems because of time differences between the foreign markets' business hours and the local (e.g. U.S.) business hours.
Nowak [0014] there is a present need for fair value calculations that make adjustments to closing prices for liquidity, time zone, and other factors.
Nowak [0022] an international security's overnight returns when compared against a benchmark return factor, such as a snapshot U.S. market return;
Nowak [0016] trading on international markets by making certain adjustments for time-zone differences between the time-zone of the futures contract, the time zone of U.S. exchanges, and in some cases the time-zone of the foreign exchange on which the constituents of the index are traded.
Examiner interprets the "close of business" time as fixed, which translates to at a different local time based on respective time zones. )
communicating, by the electronic platform, with at least one external data source
(Nowak [0018] connected to an electronic data network (e.g., the Internet, LAN, etc.) and configured to receive electronic data ...from data sources via the electronic data network.
Nowak [0078] The computer system 420 may be in electronic communication with an electronic data network.....via an electronic data network, may access...data feeds...and other sources/repositories)
and receiving components of the reference benchmark value associated with the multiple time zones from the at least one external data source, each of the components comprising an official closing index level of a respective external market located in a respective one of the multiple time zones, received at a specific time point associated with a respective one of the multiple time zones; automatically determining, by the electronic platform, the reference benchmark value based on all of said components of the reference benchmark value associated with the multiple time zones
(Nowak [Figure 5, element 502] Receive information relating to a futures contract for index i
Nowak [0034] There are many factors which can be used in FVM...The following general principles are used to select factors for the FVM
Nowak [0005] The price at which these transactions occur is typically the fund's Net Asset Value (NAV) computed on the basis of closing prices for the day of all securities in the fund. Thus, fund trade orders received during regular business hours are executed the next business day, at the NAV calculated at the close of business on the day the order was received.
Nowak [0061] The overnight returns of foreign stocks are computed using Bloomberg pricing data.... The FVM universe covers 41 countries
Examiner presumes 41 countries are not all within the same timezone)
detecting, by the electronic platform, availability of each of the components of the reference benchmark value from the at least one external data source,
(Nowak [0078] The computer system 420 may be in electronic communication with an electronic data network.....via an electronic data network, may access...data feeds...and other sources/repositories
Nowak [0102] An index measures the change in price in a group of underlying security constituents.
Nowak [0076] corresponding U.S. market and sector snapshot return data are obtained from an available source, as is price fluctuation data for each stock in the selected universe
Nowak [0129] for which intraday data is available for both the underlying index and the future, the intersection of trading periods are found and analyzed.)
each component becoming available at a different time point corresponding to a closing of a respective external market in a respective one of the multiple time zones
(Nowak [0106] When considering the relationship of the trading times, at least three general patterns emerge: index futures contracts that trade after the market on which its index constituents close and before U.S. markets close, index futures contracts that trade near or after U.S. markets close, and index futures contracts that close near the markets on which its index constituents trade and before U.S. markets close.
Nowak [0107] relationship between the trading times of HIA index futures contracts, the underlying HIA index constituents on HKG equity market, and the U.S. markets. As shown, there can be two different stale periods:
Nowak [0109] timeline shows the relationship between the trading times of S&P/TSE 60 index futures contracts, the underlying S&P/TSE 60 index constituents on the TSE equity market, and the U.S. markets.)
responsive to detecting that all components corresponding to all of the multiple time zones have been received,
(Nowak [0104] data relating to the index and the index futures contract is gathered
Nowak [0017] The method includes using a computer to receive electronic data for the index i. Once the data has been gathered)
upon expiration of the predetermined time, determining, by the electronic platform, the final value of the trade based on the automatically determined reference benchmark value associated with the multiple time zones:
(Nowak [0124] T: The expiration date of the futures contract for index i;
Nowak [0125] Pfi,t*: The predicted fair-value adjusted price for the futures contract on index i;
Nowak [0022] an international security's overnight returns when compared against a benchmark return factor, such as a snapshot U.S. market return;
Nowak [0016] trading on international markets by making certain adjustments for time-zone differences between the time-zone of the futures contract, the time zone of U.S. exchanges, and in some cases the time-zone of the foreign exchange on which the constituents of the index are traded.)
assigning, by the electronic platform, the final value of the trade to the retrieved trade information,
(Nowak [Claim 1] calculating a fair-value adjusted price for the futures contract )
on an underlying index future priced according to at least one market in at least one of the multiple time zones;
(Nowak [0102] An index measures the change in price in a group of underlying security constituents. For example, the S&P 500 is an index that measures the change in price of 500 large-cap common stocks that are actively traded in the U.S.
Nowak [0030] NAV of mutual fund shares is typically calculated at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), i.e., at the close of the U.S. financial markets
Nowak [0119] Examples of index futures contracts that can be used as factor Z are futures contracts that are based on the Nikkei 225 and S&P 500 indexes.)
the derivative settling ….and automatically creating a position in the underlying index future having an exchange delivery settlement price calculated based on the automatically determined reference benchmark value;
(Nowak [0017] receiving, by a computer, a settlement price (SETTi) of the futures contract for index i. Then a computer is used to calculate a fair-value adjusted price for the futures contract of index i based at least in part on the alpha (α) and beta (β) coefficients, the settlement price of the futures contract (SETTi) for index i, and at least one return of a predetermined factor (Zt)
Nowak [0018] for determining fair-value prices of a futures contract of index i having foreign constituent securities.
Nowak [0022] a time-series regression to construct a fair value model of an international security's overnight returns when compared against a benchmark return
Nowak [0102] An index measures the change in price in a group of underlying security constituents.)
Nowak does not teach storing, by the electronic platform, the trade information as a record among one or more data tables of a plurality of databases; the plurality of databases comprising a settlement database, a trade database, and a reporting database, the record including a related data field indicating the trade is in a pending state; comprising a third-party data service; delaying, by the electronic platform, execution of the trade while the components of the reference benchmark value are received from the at least one external data source via an electronic network; marking, by the electronic platform, the trade to market at a closing basis settlement value; retrieving, by the electronic platform, the trade information associated with the trade from the record among the one or more data tables; and thereby creating an executable trade and updating the related data field to indicate the trade is no longer in the pending state, the final value comprising a final price and a quantity; automatically creating, by the electronic platform, responsive to the executable trade, a derivative ; reporting, by the electronic platform, the executable trade to a reporting platform; clearing, by the electronic platform, the trade; and arranging, by the electronic platform, for the trade to physically settle into the underlying index future.
O'shea teaches,
storing, by the electronic platform, the trade information as a record among one or more data tables
(O'shea [page 37, lines 14-15] all transactions will be stored on the Transaction Table
O'shea [page 48, lines 29-30] the building blocks of the reporting systems and represent raw data fields (or columns in database tables))
retrieving, by the electronic platform, the trade information associated with the trade from the record among the one or more data tables;
(O'shea [page 37, lines 14-15] all transactions will be stored on the Transaction Table
O'shea [page 53, lines 23-29]... some direct SQL requests, in order to provide Database connectivity. ...Data gathering will be done via calls to the various relevant data bases on the Server.)
and thereby creating an executable trade, the final value comprising a final price and a quantity;
(O'shea [Claim 70] identity of financial instruments in a fund, the quantity of each financial instrument in the fund and the value of each financial instrument in the fund
O'shea [page 28, lines 29-31] The transactions are processed on a custody system and the trade date)
automatically creating, by the electronic platform, responsive to the executable trade, a derivative
(O'shea [page 17, lines 13-20] the composite accounts are aggregations of accounts by investment themes... there may be a composite of all foreign equity portfolios...The creation of a composite account includes the addition of account level information as defined in the composite requirements document.
Examiner likens the generation of composite accounts holding a “composite of all foreign equity portfolios” to the generation of synthetic derivatives.
O'shea [page 8, lines 17-18] in interpreting the guidelines for each client (e.g., what does a particular client define as a "derivative"?).
O'shea [page 17, lines 21-28] Once the composite is created, however, additional calculations are then performed to generate the proper data for rule executions.... coverage logic on derivatives.... composite level testing can be employed to calculate derivative exposure for the composite
O'shea [page 17, lines 29-31] Benchmarks may be employed to compare the country exposure of the composite to the benchmark for the plan in general
Examiner notes any tradeable instrument that is based upon an (underlying) security/benchmark/composite is inherently a derivative )
reporting, by the electronic platform, the executable trade to a reporting platform;
(O'shea [page 39, lines 16-17] Clicking the Fund Transaction Tab caused the System to display a list of all transactions for the fund
O'shea [page 40, lines 23-24] Clicking on the Holding Transaction Tab will cause the System to display a list of all transactions for selected asset)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the investment compliance
of O'shea “for portfolio compliance and administration receives data concerning financial instruments that comprise a financial fund (4) from a collection of information sources.” (O'shea [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. investment compliance) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “confirm that the fund is being managed in accordance with predetermined rules.” O'shea [Abstract])
O'shea does not teach a plurality of databases, the plurality of databases comprising a settlement database, a trade database, and a reporting database, the record including a related data field indicating the trade is in a pending state; comprising a third-party data service ; delaying, by the electronic platform, execution of the trade while the components of the reference benchmark value are received from the at least one external data source via an electronic network; marking, by the electronic platform, the trade to market at a closing basis settlement value ; updating the related data field to indicate the trade is no longer in the pending state; to a normalized value; clearing, by the electronic platform, the trade; and arranging, by the electronic platform, for the trade to physically settle into the underlying index future.
Wilson teaches,
clearing, by the electronic platform, the trade; and arranging, by the electronic platform, for the trade to physically settle into the underlying index future.
(Wilson [0002] A derivative is a financial instrument whose value is linked to the price of an underlying commodity, asset, rate, index
Wilson [0010] the financial instrument is settled (either cash settlement or physical delivery)
Wilson [0011] All futures and futures options are centrally cleared...Central clearing means that the counterparty risk is removed.... each party faces a clearinghouse and looks solely to the clearinghouse for clearing trades)
Wilson more explicitly teaches,
automatically creating, by the electronic platform, … a derivative
(Wilson [0114] permits the creation of an instrument that lessens the effect of the granularization issue through coupon standardization
Wilson [0002] A variety of different types of financial instruments are traded throughout the world. Examples include cash contracts and derivatives. … A derivative is a financial instrument whose value is linked to the price of an underlying commodity, asset, rate, index, currency or the occurrence or magnitude of an event.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the investment clearance and settlement of Wilson where “All futures and futures options are centrally cleared...Central clearing means that the counterparty risk is removed.... each party faces a clearinghouse and looks solely to the clearinghouse for clearing trades.” (Wilson [0011]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. in investment clearance and settlement) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the financial instrument is settled (either cash settlement or physical delivery.” Wilson [0010])
Wilson does not teach a plurality of databases, the plurality of databases comprising a settlement database, a trade database, and a reporting database, the record including a related data field indicating the trade is in a pending state; comprising a third-party data service ; delaying, by the electronic platform, execution of the trade while the components of the reference benchmark value are received from the at least one external data source via an electronic network; marking, by the electronic platform, the trade to market at a closing basis settlement value ; updating the related data field to indicate the trade is no longer in the pending state; to a normalized value; clearing, by the electronic platform, the trade; and arranging, by the electronic platform, for the trade to physically settle into the underlying index future.
Waelbroeck teaches,
the record including a related data field indicating the trade is in a pending state;
(Waelbroeck [0114] the execution pending status will be reported
Waelbroeck [0184] The changes are in a pending status)
comprising a third-party data service
(Waelbroeck [0051] system also exposes an Application Programming Interface (API) to enable approved third parties ... the Block Price Range can also be obtained through the FIX protocol for market data services.
Waelbroeck [0158] The Execution Engine 50 derives the security-trading status from a Data Vendor 60. If the Data Vendor 60 is unable to provide the service)
delaying, by the electronic platform, execution of the trade while the components of the reference benchmark value are received from the at least one external data source via an electronic network;
( Waelbroeck [0077] receives a data feed that informs said server of the market activity state per symbol (start, stop, trading halts),... carries out analytical calculations as described herein to determine a reference price...It is responsible for... trading halts.
Waelbroeck [0158] If the Data Vendor 60 is unable to provide the service or the corresponding communications network 70 fails, the Execution Engine does not process any trades but simply waits for the vital services to be re-established.)
updating the related data field to indicate the trade is no longer in the pending state,
(Waelbroeck [0184] The changes are in a pending status until the user saves the changes.
Waelbroeck [0329] shows the order status as “cancel pending”. Upon reconnecting, the order status is updated to “canceled”.)
to a normalized value
(Waelbroeck [0295] Block Quantity and parameters utilized by the Analytics Server 160 to calculate the Block Price Range
Waelbroeck [0296] Beta - Squashing parameter to renormalize the Block Spread)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the execution delay of Waelbroeck where “the Execution Engine does not process any trades but simply waits.” (Waelbroeck [0158]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. execution delay) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “If the Data Vendor 60 is unable to provide the service or the corresponding communications network 70 fails, the Execution Engine does not process any trades but simply waits for the vital services to be re-established.” Waelbroeck [0158])
Waelbroeck does not teach a plurality of databases, the plurality of databases comprising a settlement database, a trade database, and a reporting database; marking, by the electronic platform, the trade to market at a closing basis settlement value.
Grody teaches,
a plurality of databases,
(Grody [0214] in databases )
the plurality of databases comprising a settlement database,
(Grody [0364] currency of settlement and other such data attributes of the financial instrument will be stored as reference data in CCDM 1200 Data Pool.)
a trade database,
(Grody [0214] The trades of traders 1, 2 and 3 are in databases 1005, 1010 and 1015, respectively.)
and a reporting database;
(Grody [0309] it is stored for later exception reporting and analysis (not shown).)
marking, by the electronic platform, the trade to market at a closing basis settlement value.
(Grody [0226] The closing price is also referred to as a "last sale price" or a "valuation price". The closing price is very important, as most investors perform daily mark-to-market valuations of their investments using the closing price for their securities.)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the marking to market of Grody that “perform daily mark-to-market valuations” (Grody [0226]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. marking to market) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “The closing price … perform daily mark-to-market valuations of their investments using the closing price for their securities.” Grody [0226])
Regarding Claim 2,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Nowak teaches,
wherein the reference benchmark value is associated with at least one of (i) an index close, (ii) an index open, (iii) an exchange daily settlement price, and (iv) a volume weighted average price over time.
(Nowak [0005] The price at which these transactions occur is typically the fund's Net Asset Value (NAV) computed on the basis of closing prices for the day of all securities in the fund
Nowak [0022] an international security's overnight returns when compared against a benchmark return factor, such as a snapshot U.S. market return
Nowak [0089] significant positive δ using Model 2 as the benchmark
Nowak [0067] Model 2 is similar to Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM))
Regarding Claim 3,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Nowak teaches,
wherein the specific time point, for each of the components, differs from a closing time of the first time zone.
(Nowak [0016] trading on international markets by making certain adjustments for time-zone differences between the time-zone of the futures contract, the time zone of U.S. exchanges, and in some cases the time-zone of the foreign exchange on which the constituents of the index are traded.
Nowak [0030] typically calculated at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), i.e., at the close of the U.S. financial markets...This is well after many, if not most, foreign markets already have closed.)
Regarding Claim 4,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Nowak does not teach storing, by the electronic platform, the trade information responsive to receiving an indication of the trade.
O'shea teaches,
storing, by the electronic platform, the trade information responsive to receiving an indication of the trade.
(O'shea [page 37, lines 14-15] all transactions will be stored on the Transaction Table
O'shea [page 81, lines 5-8] The As-of General Ledger Proof Report details post date account balances... on or after the post date that were posted to the system ... This report can be used as a tool for reconciliation and confirmation of as-of general ledger transactions)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the investment compliance
of O'shea “for portfolio compliance and administration receives data concerning financial instruments that comprise a financial fund (4) from a collection of information sources.” (O'shea [Abstract]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. investment compliance) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “confirm that the fund is being managed in accordance with predetermined rules.” O'shea [Abstract])
Regarding Claim 5,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 4 as described earlier.
Nowak teaches,
wherein a last of the components of the reference benchmark value is received at a final specific time point that is an index close on a second day after a day that the indication of the trade is received.
(Nowak [0016] trading on international markets by making certain adjustments for time-zone differences between the time-zone of the futures contract, the time zone of U.S. exchanges, and in some cases the time-zone of the foreign exchange on which the constituents of the index are traded.
Nowak [0030] typically calculated at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), i.e., at the close of the U.S. financial markets...This is well after many, if not most, foreign markets already have closed.
Nowak [0118] Ri,t+1: The next day return of index i;)
Regarding Claim 6,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Nowak does not teach generating, by the electronic platform, a trade identifier and linking the trade identifier with the trade; and mapping, by the electronic platform, the trade identifier and the trade information, in the record, to one or more predefined fields of the one or more data tables.
O'shea teaches,
generating, by the electronic platform, a trade identifier and linking the trade identifier with the trade; and mapping, by the electronic platform, the trade identifier and the trade information, in the record, to one or more predefined fields of the one or more data tables
(O'shea [page 37, lines 14-17] all transactions will be stored on the Transaction Table and will be logically related to the Asset holding in the fund through the unique Fund ID - Asset ID combination. A unique Lot ID is established to define the relationship between Fund Lots and Transactions.
O'shea [page 40, lines 27-28] detail information regarding one specific transaction, the User can enter a Transaction ID
O'shea [page 16, lines 20-23] The data fields related to the funds are defined for each fund based on the analytical needs for that fund. These data fields provide the building blocks to set up investment guidelines)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the trade identifier
of O'shea where “detail information regarding one specific transaction, the User can enter a Transaction ID.” (O'shea [page 40, lines 27-28]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. trade identifier) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “established to define the relationship between Fund Lots and Transactions.” O'shea [page 37, lines 14-17])
Regarding Claim 7,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 6 as described earlier.
Nowak does not teach wherein the trade identifier and the trade information are stored in the record among the one or more data tables in a searchable format.
O'shea teaches,
wherein the trade identifier and the trade information are stored in the record among the one or more data tables in a searchable format
(O'shea [page 37, lines 14-17] all transactions will be stored on the Transaction Table and will be logically related to the Asset holding in the fund through the unique Fund ID - Asset ID combination. A unique Lot ID is established to define the relationship between Fund Lots and Transactions.
O'shea [page 40, lines 27-28] detail information regarding one specific transaction, the User can enter a Transaction ID
O'shea [page 31, lines 25-26] the Asset Search Screen, will be used to find the appropriate asset item (or list of them) in the database.
O'shea [page 53, line 25] direct SQL requests)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the trade identifier
of O'shea where “detail information regarding one specific transaction, the User can enter a Transaction ID.” (O'shea [page 40, lines 27-28]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. trade identifier) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “established to define the relationship between Fund Lots and Transactions.” O'shea [page 37, lines 14-17])
Regarding Claim 8,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 7 as described earlier.
Nowak does not teach wherein retrieval of any portion of the trade information associated with the trade comprises searching for the trade identifier in a predefined field among the one or more predefined fields.
O'shea teaches,
wherein retrieval of any portion of the trade information associated with the trade comprises searching for the trade identifier in a predefined field among the one or more predefined fields.
(O'shea [page 37, lines 14-17] all transactions will be stored on the Transaction Table and will be logically related to the Asset holding in the fund through the unique Fund ID - Asset ID combination. A unique Lot ID is established to define the relationship between Fund Lots and Transactions.
O'shea [page 31, lines 25-26] the Asset Search Screen, will be used to find the appropriate asset item (or list of them) in the database.
O'shea [page 48, lines 29-30] the building blocks of the reporting systems and represent raw data fields (or columns in database tables))
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the trade identifier
of O'shea where “detail information regarding one specific transaction, the User can enter a Transaction ID.” (O'shea [page 40, lines 27-28]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. trade identifier) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “established to define the relationship between Fund Lots and Transactions.” O'shea [page 37, lines 14-17])
Regarding Claim 9,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 6 as described earlier.
Nowak does not teach wherein the one or more predefined fields include one or more of a trade identifier field, a description field, a date field and a related data field.
O'shea teaches,
wherein the one or more predefined fields include one or more of a trade identifier field, a description field, a date field and a related data field.
(O'shea [page 48, lines 29-30] the building blocks of the reporting systems and represent raw data fields (or columns in database tables)
O'shea [page 40, lines 27-28] detail information regarding one specific transaction, the User can enter a Transaction ID
O'shea [page 81, line 2-3] The System displays cusip, sedol, asset description (long) and list each transaction with trade date, post date, transaction type, units and cost)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the trade identifier
of O'shea where “detail information regarding one specific transaction, the User can enter a Transaction ID.” (O'shea [page 40, lines 27-28]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. trade identifier) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “established to define the relationship between Fund Lots and Transactions.” O'shea [page 37, lines 14-17])
Regarding Claim 10,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 9 as described earlier.
Nowak does not teach wherein the related data field includes information comprising one or more of a processing status, one or more financial values and one or more trading parties.
O'shea teaches,
wherein the related data field includes information comprising one or more of a processing status, one or more financial values and one or more trading parties.
(O'shea [page 28, lines 7-8] The user may filter the search results by date, name, completion status)
Regarding Claim 11,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Nowak does not teach updating, by the at least one database, the one or more data tables based on information received from one or more entities.
O'shea teaches,
updating, by the plurality of databases, the one or more data tables based on information received from one or more entities.
(O'shea [page 31, lines 7-8] enable or disable source updating
O'shea [page 53, line 23] some direct SQL requests
O'shea [page 48, lines 29-30] the building blocks of the reporting systems and represent raw data fields (or columns in database tables))
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the trade identifier
of O'shea where “detail information regarding one specific transaction, the User can enter a Transaction ID.” (O'shea [page 40, lines 27-28]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. trade identifier) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “established to define the relationship between Fund Lots and Transactions.” O'shea [page 37, lines 14-17])
Regarding Claim 12,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Nowak teaches,
wherein the derivative comprises one of (i) a future on the underlying index future, (ii) an option on the underlying index future, and (iii) a combination of put and call options on the underlying index future.
(Nowak [0031] S&P 500 Index
Nowak [0010] has led to the expansion of the strategic use of derivatives in mutual funds for various purposes
Nowak [0102] An index measures the change in price in a group of underlying security constituents
Examiner notes any instrument based upon an underlying security is inherently a derivative)
Regarding Claim 13,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Nowak does not teach wherein the derivative created by the executable trade is listed on a central order book.
Wilson teaches,
wherein the derivative created by the executable trade is listed on a central order book.
(Wilson [0114] permits the creation of an instrument that lessens the effect of the granularization issue through coupon standardization
Wilson [0023] standardized nature of futures results in concentration of liquidity within the central limit order book, as multiple trading participants place bids and offers to trade)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the investment clearance and settlement of Wilson where “All futures and futures options are centrally cleared...Central clearing means that the counterparty risk is removed.... each party faces a clearinghouse and looks solely to the clearinghouse for clearing trades.” (Wilson [0011]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. in investment clearance and settlement) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “the financial instrument is settled (either cash settlement or physical delivery.” Wilson [0010])
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody in view of MSCI (“MSCI Global Investable Market Indices Methodology”, May 2011).
Regarding Claim 14,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 13 as described earlier.
Nowak does not teach wherein the executable trade is available for block trading.
MSCI teaches,
wherein the executable trade is available for block trading.
(MSCI [page 37] block sales/buys that occur
MSCI [page 41] processes such as block sales or block buys)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the index development and management of MSCI that outlines the “objectives and details the methodology employed to create and maintain the MSCI Global Investable Market Indices.” (MSCI [page 8]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. index development and management) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “investability requirements and the size‐segmentation methodology used in constructing the indices.” MSCI [page 8])
Regarding Claim 15,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Nowack teaches,
at index close including at least one of a future, an option, or a combination of put and call options
(Nowak [0129] on the latest trading day for which intraday data is available for both the underlying index and the future
Nowak [0030] typically calculated at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), i.e., at the close of the U.S. financial markets...This is well after many, if not most, foreign markets already have closed. )
Nowak does not teach said reporting and said clearing are associated with a Europe, Australasia and Far East index trade at index trade.
MSCI teaches,
said reporting and said clearing are associated with a Europe, Australasia and Far East index trade at index trade
(MSCI [page 12] the MSCI Europe Index are derived from the constituents of the MSCI Europe Index
MSCI [page 65-66] list of Stock Exchanges, Market Segments and Eligible Security Classes that MSCI uses as the basis of the construction of the MSCI Global Investable Market Indices and MSCI
Frontier Markets Indices....AUSTRALIA...JAPAN Tokyo Stock Exchange ...SINGAPORE...CHINA
MSCI [page 53] Micro Cap Maximum Size Requirement
MSCI [page 74] Well functioning clearing and settlement system)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the index development and management of MSCI that outlines the “objectives and details the methodology employed to create and maintain the MSCI Global Investable Market Indices.” (MSCI [page 8]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. index development and management) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “investability requirements and the size‐segmentation methodology used in constructing the indices.” MSCI [page 8])
Regarding Claim 16,
Nowak, O’shea, Wilson, Waelbroeck, and Grody teach the index trading of Claim 1 as described earlier.
Nowack teaches,
at index close including at least one of a future, an option, or a combination of put and call options
(Nowak [0129] on the latest trading day for which intraday data is available for both the underlying index and the future
Nowak [0030] typically calculated at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), i.e., at the close of the U.S. financial markets...This is well after many, if not most, foreign markets already have closed. )
Nowak does not teach said reporting and said clearing are associated with an emerging markets index trade.
MSCI teaches,
said reporting and said clearing are associated with an emerging markets index trade
(MSCI [page 12] the MSCI Europe Index are derived from the constituents of the MSCI Europe Index
MSCI [page 9] , under the MSCI Global Investable Market Indices methodology, there are new Small Cap Indices covering Emerging Markets countries
MSCI [page 53] Micro Cap Maximum Size Requirement
MSCI [page 74] Well functioning clearing and settlement system)
It is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the index trade by timezone system of Nowak to incorporate the index development and management of MSCI that outlines the “objectives and details the methodology employed to create and maintain the MSCI Global Investable Market Indices.” (MSCI [page 8]). The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e. index development and management) to a known concept (i.e. index trade by timezone) ready for improvement to yield predictable result (i.e. “investability requirements and the size‐segmentation methodology used in constructing the indices.” MSCI [page 8])
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on June 5, 2026, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant states:
“A human cannot practically detect availability of official closing index levels from third-party data services across multiple time zones, automatically determine a reference benchmark value responsive to detecting completeness, update database state fields, or automatically create derivatives that settle to normalized values with calculated exchange delivery settlement prices (EDSPs).."
Examiner responds:
The Examiner never rejected the claims under Mental Processing. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Applicant states:
“The pending claims solve a technology-centric problem: how an electronic trading platform handles trades when reference benchmark data from multiple time zones doesn't exist yet because markets haven't closed.”
Examiner responds:
The “handl(ing) trades when reference benchmark data from multiple time zones doesn't exist yet because markets haven't closed” is not a technological problem but rather a business process consideration. The alleged issue exists whether a computer is utilized or not.
Applicant states:
“This problem/solution is similar to USPTO Example 47 Claim 3.”
Examiner responds:
Claim 3 describes dropping the one or more malicious network packets and blocking future traffic from the source address. The acts of “dropping network packets” and “blocking traffic” are additional elements that do not traditionally and purposefully occur when implementing application specific integrated circuits. Therefore, the claim reflect the improvement in technology as described in the background. Thus, the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claims are not directed to the judicial exception. And when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection.
Applicant’s claimed invention does not solve a technical problem related to application specific integrated circuits nor network intrusion. Applicant’s invention provides no similar technology improvement. Instead, the process recited in Applicant’s invention merely uses a computer as a tool for carrying out non-technical processes. See Enfish, LLC vy. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he first step in the Alice inquiry . . . asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”).
Applicant states:
“The problem/solution is also similar to USPTO Example 21, Claim 2.”
Examiner responds:
Neither the Appellant’s Claims nor Specification mirror Example 21 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. The explanation of Example 21 states, “The claimed invention addresses the Internet‐centric challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber’s computer is offline. This is addressed by transmitting the alert over a wireless communication channel to activate the stock viewer application, which causes the alert to display and enables the connection of the remote subscriber computer to the data source over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer comes online.” This is addressed by transmitting an alert over a wireless communication channel to activate the stock viewer application, which causes the alert to display and enables the connection of the remote subscriber computer to the data source over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer comes online.
These are meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea. The Example Specification and Claims solves a technological matter relating to offline notifications and updates that were not technically possible before the invention.
Applicant states:
“The Desjardins Memo.”
Examiner responds:
In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
Applicant’s invention incorporates no similar details and is not analogous to Ex Parte Desjardins. Applicant’s invention does not even utilize machine learning.
Applicant’s invention is “merely applying” generic off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, synthesizing, sending, and presenting the desired information. See MPEP 2106.05(d) well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's amendments required the application of new/additional prior art.
New prior art includes:
Waelbroeck (“BLOCK TRADING SYSTEM AND METHOD PROVIDING PRICE IMPROVEMENT TO AGGRESSIVE ORDERS”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20040210511A1),
Grody (“CENTRAL COUNTERPARTY FOR DATA MANAGEMENT”, U.S. Publication Number: US 20110071958A1).
Excised prior art includes:
Umezawa (“INDEX CALCULATION SYSTEM, INDEX CALCULATION METHOD, INDEX CALCULATION PROGRAM”, Japanese Publication Number: JP 2012128650 A).
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 are rendered moot by the introduction of additional prior art.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Haines (“STRUCTURED FUTURES PRODUCTS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20110055112 A1) proposes creating and trading structured futures and various vehicles to allow nearly equivalent financial instruments to be created and traded on exchanges are described, including computer systems and computer implemented methods that allow the creation and trading of structured futures and related financial instruments. Computer systems and methods may be used to calculate the value of structured futures and related financial instruments before maturity and their payoff value at maturity.
Gould (“METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR REPLICATING AN INDEX WITH LIQUID INSTRUMENTS”, U.S. Publication Number: 20060253360 A1) provides replicating a first index, comprising: constructing a basket of derivative financial instruments selected to replicate said index; wherein said basket of derivative financial instruments is constructed using key rate duration matching based on a plurality of instruments, and wherein said basket is reconstructed on a periodic basis approximately equal to that on which said index is reconstructed. In another aspect, the invention comprises a method for replicating a portfolio of securities, comprising: constructing a basket of derivative financial instruments selected to replicate said portfolio; wherein said basket of derivative financial instruments is constructed using key rate duration matching based on a plurality of instruments, and wherein said basket is reconstructed on a periodic basis approximately equal to that on which said portfolio is reconstructed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights