DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to Applicant’s communications filed on 04 September 2025. Claims 1-16 are pending in this application. Rejections are recited below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application, filed on 04 September 2025 is a Continuation of 18/748,792, filed on 20 June 2024, and is now US Patent No. 12,450,659. Application 18/748,792 is a Continuation of 18/480,822, filed on 04 October 2023, and is now US Patent No. 12,045,889. Application 18/480,822 is a Continuation of 17/716,197, filed on 08 April 2022, and is now US Patent No. 11,830,073. Application 17/716,197 is a Continuation of 16/191,491, filed on 15 November 2018, and is now US Patent No. 11,321,778 . Application 16/191,491 is a Continuation of 14/683,256, filed on 10 April 2015, and is now US Patent No. 10,152,750. Application 14/683,256 is a Divisional of 14/570,778, filed on 15 December 2014, is now US Patent No. 10,002,388. Application 14/570,778 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 61/922762, filed on 31 December 2013.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-16 are directed to a “method” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims are directed to the abstract idea of prohibiting a user from issuing new trade instruction messages which is a fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk grouped under a method of organizing human activity.
in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p.p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019))). Claims recite:
receiving a plurality of trade instruction messages from a plurality of user “devices”, the plurality of trade instruction messages associated with a plurality of trading symbols,;
storing the plurality of trade instruction messages in an order book;
continuously monitoring the plurality of trade instruction messages;
identifying based on the continuously monitoring, a trade instruction message of the plurality of trade instruction messages associated with a trading symbol of the plurality of trading symbols and a user having a trading status that is enabled;
determining that one or more first parameters associated with the trading symbol in the trade instruction message are below a first threshold associated with a first triggering event;
retrieving based on the determination that the one or more first parameters associated with the trading symbol in the trade instruction message are below the first threshold, stored trades associated with the trading symbol and the user from an order manager, the stored trades executed within a rolling time period prior to receipt of the trade instruction message;
determining an occurrence of a second triggering event based on one or more second parameters associated with the trading symbol in a predetermined number of the stored trades executed within the rolling time period breach a second threshold;
disabling the trading status of the user, thereby prohibiting the user from issuing new trade instruction messages; and
canceling execution of any further trades associated with the trading symbol and the user.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as:
an interface of an electronic trading system ("ETS");
one or more processors operatively coupled to a non-transitory memory
plurality of user “devices” via a network,
by at least one risk mitigation ("RM") module, and
at least one matching engine of the ETS;
represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of “collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis”.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
The computer and computer program instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities. These functionalities are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of mitigating risk using computer technology (e.g. the processor).
Hence, claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-16 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong Two).
For example, claims 2-16 are silent as to “additional elements” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of mitigating risk.
improve another technology or technical field nor the functioning of the computer itself.
Accordingly, none of the dependent claims add a technological solution to the method of organizing human activity in the independent claim.
Conclusion
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Additional Comments
Regarding claims 1-16, in view of pending rejections, the Examiner is unable to locate prior art references that anticipate the claimed invention or renders it obvious.
The prior art of record (Amicangioli, US Pub No. 20120166327 A1, in view of Farrell et
al, US Patent No. 7,440,917 B2, in further view of Kittelsen et al, US Pub. No. 20110225081
A1) teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by an interface of an electronic trading system (“ETS”), a plurality of trade instruction messages from a plurality of user devices via a network, the plurality of trade instruction messages associated with a plurality of trading symbols, the ETS comprising one or more processors operatively coupled to a non-transitory memory;
storing, by at least one matching engine of the ETS, the plurality of trade instruction messages in an order book;
continuously monitoring, by at least one risk mitigation (“RM”) module of the ETS, the plurality of trade instruction messages;
identifying, by the at least one RM module based on the continuously monitoring, a trade instruction message of the plurality of trade instruction messages associated with a trading symbol of the plurality of trading symbols and a user having a trading status that is enabled;
determining, by the at least one RM module, that one or more first parameters associated with the trading symbol in the trade instruction message are below a first threshold associated with a first triggering event;
retrieving, by the at least one RM module, based on the determination that the one or more first parameters associated with the trading symbol in the trade instruction message are below the first threshold, stored trades associated with the trading symbol and the user from an order manager, the stored trades executed within a rolling time period prior to receipt of the trade instruction message; and
determining, by the at least one RM module, an occurrence of a second triggering event based on one or more second parameters associated with the trading symbol in a predetermined number of the stored trades executed within the rolling time period breach a second threshold.
Even though, the prior art of a method including:
disabling, by the at least one RM module, the trading status of the user, thereby prohibiting the user from issuing new trade instruction messages; and
canceling, by the at least one matching engine, execution of any further trades associated with the trading symbol and the user.
For these reasons claim 1 would be deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record and claims 2-16 would be allowed by dependency on allowed claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ben Simon et al (US Pub. No. 20070233585 A1) (October 4, 2007) “Device, System And Method Of Interactive Gaming And Investing”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F.
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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692