DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 05/20/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
3. A Terminal Disclaimer filed on 05/20/2026 and it was approved on 05/20/2026.
Related Application(s) – Prior Art of Record
4. The instant application is a continuation application (CON) of parent application 19/243,480 (now USPN 12,505,485), which is itself a CON of application 18/616,176 (now USPN 12,361,491). In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A.2 and §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the prior art cited in the above parent application has been considered, and all documents cited or considered ‘of record' in that application are now considered cited or ‘of record' in this application. The prosecution history of the above parent application is relevant in the examination of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
7. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process) and claims 11-20 are directed to a system (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “concurrently with processing transaction flows settling transactions, updating and maintaining a set of security action triggers that, when triggered, subject pre-settlement transactions to one or more supplemental security actions, including: tracking order frequency, transaction attributes, and user attributes based on a set of factors; continually and automatically checking the set of factors for one or more factors impacting transactions; identifying that a factor, from among the one or more factors, is occurring; determining that the identified factor impacts pre-settlement transactions associated with specified transaction data in view of the tracked transaction attributes and user attributes; and responsive to determining that the identified factor impacts pre-settlement transactions associated with the specified transaction data, setting a flag denoting that pre-settlement transactions associated with the specified transaction data are subject to the one or more supplemental security actions prior to settlement; concurrently with processing transaction flows settling transactions and concurrently with updating and maintaining the set of security action triggers, reviewing a transaction in response to triggering a security action trigger, including: monitoring flow of a “live” transaction, the “live” transaction being pre-settlement and including live transaction data defining exchange of shares in an asset between a buyer of the shares and a seller of the shares; matching the live transaction data with the specified transaction data; and in response to matching the live transaction data with the specified transaction data automatically: interrupting flow of the “live” transaction from progressing towards settlement; and while interrupted, subjecting the “live” transaction to the one or more supplemental security actions triggered in view of the set flag, the one or more supplemental security actions handling any transaction irregularities associated with the identified factor; and (1) allowing the flow of the “live” transaction to resume and the “live” transaction to progress towards settlement subsequent to completion of the one or more supplemental security actions or (2) preventing the flow of the “live” transaction and stopping the “live” transaction from settling based on the one or more supplemental security actions.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities) for processing a transaction between a purchasing entity and a selling entity including allowing and preventing the flow of the “live” transaction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea does not include additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 11:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 11 recites the at least following limitations of “concurrently with processing transaction flows settling transactions, update and maintain a set of security action triggers that, when triggered, subject pre-settlement transactions to one or more supplemental security actions, including: track order frequency, transaction attributes, and user attributes based on a set of factors; continually and automatically check the set of factors for one or more factors impacting transactions; identify that a factor, from among the one or more factors, is occurring; determining that the identified factor impacts pre-settlement transactions associated with specified transaction data in view of the tracked transaction attributes and user attributes; and responsive to determining that the identified factor impacts pre-settlement transactions associated with the specified transaction data, set a flag denoting that pre-settlement transactions associated with the specified transaction data are subject to the one or more supplemental security actions prior to settlement; concurrently with processing transaction flows settling transactions and concurrently with updating and maintaining the set of security action triggers, review a transaction in response to triggering a security action trigger, including: monitor flow of a “live” transaction, the “live” transaction being pre-settlement and including live transaction data defining exchange of shares in an asset between a buyer of the shares and a seller of the shares; match the live transaction data with the specified transaction data; and in response to matching the live transaction data with the specified transaction data automatically: interrupt flow of the “live” transaction from progressing towards settlement; and while interrupted, subject the “live” transaction to the one or more supplemental security actions triggered in view of the set flag, the one or more supplemental security actions handling any transaction irregularities associated with the identified factor; and (1) allow the flow of the “live” transaction to resume and the “live” transaction to progress towards settlement subsequent to completion of the one or more supplemental security actions or (2) prevent the flow of the “live” transaction and stopping the “live” transaction from settling based on the one or more supplemental security actions.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities) for processing a transaction between a purchasing entity and a selling entity including allowing and preventing the flow of the “live” transaction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 11 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a processor” and “system memory”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere 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). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor” and “system memory” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2 and 12: simply provide further definition to “identifying that factor is occurring” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Simply stating that wherein identifying that factor is occurring comprises identifying a factor creating transaction ambiguity; and wherein subjecting the “live” transaction to the one or more supplemental security actions comprises pausing the “live” transaction until the transaction ambiguity is resolved do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 3 and 13: simply provide further definition to “setting the flag” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Simply stating that wherein setting the flag comprises setting the flag indicating pre-settlement transactions including transaction data associated with one or more of: the buyer, the seller, or the shares in the asset, are to be throttled for manual inspection prior to settlement; and wherein subjecting the “live” transaction to the one or more supplemental security actions comprises pausing the “live” transaction for manual inspection prior to settlement responsive to the live transaction data matching with the specified transaction data do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the system memory) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 4 and 14: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising while the “live” transaction is paused, receiving approval from a manual review of the “live” transaction; and responsive receiving the approval, allowing progression of the “live” transaction to settlement), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in dependent claims 3 and 13. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 5 and 15: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: while the “live” transaction is paused, receiving disapproval from a manual review of the “live” transaction; and responsive to the disapproval, canceling the “live” transaction), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in dependent claims 3 and 13. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 6 and 16: simply provide further definition to “setting the flag” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Simply stating that wherein setting the flag comprises setting the flag indicating pre-settlement transactions including transaction data associated with one or more of: the buyer, the seller, or the shares in the asset, are to be killed prior to settlement; and wherein preventing the flow of the “live” transaction and stopping the “live” transaction from settling comprises automatically killing the “live” transaction prior to settlement responsive to the live transaction data matching with the specified transaction data do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 7 and 17: simply refine the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising subsequent to killing the “live” transaction: reverting a capitalization table to a prior version from before the “live” transaction started; and re-listing the shares in the asset for sale), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in dependent claims 6 and 16. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 8 and 18: simply provide further definition to “matching the live transaction data with the specified transaction data” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Simply stating that wherein matching the live transaction data with the specified transaction data comprises a microservice matching the live transaction data with the specified transaction data do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 9 and 19: simply provide further definition to “setting a flag” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Simply stating that wherein setting a flag comprises setting a flag applicable to a group of transactions do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 10 and 20: simply provide further definition to “identifying a factor” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Simply stating that wherein identifying a factor comprises detecting an event through an Application Programming Interface (API) amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., an Application Programming Interface (API)).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
8. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-20 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that, under Step 2A, Prong 2, the amended features of claims 1 and 11 integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 recite far more than mere organization of human commercial activity. As amended, claims 1 and 11 recite a specific, non-generic technical architecture that operates concurrently with live transaction flows to interrupt pre-settlement transactions mid-flow, apply supplemental security actions in response to a set flag, and either resume or kill the transaction. This is a concrete technical solution rooted in computer technology, not an abstract idea. Specifically, claims 1 and 11 recite, inter alia, "concurrently with processing transaction flows settling transactions, updating and maintaining a set of security action triggers," and "concurrently with processing transaction flows settling transactions and concurrently with updating and maintaining the set of security action triggers, reviewing a transaction in response to triggering a security action trigger," as recited by claims 1 and 11 (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 12-18) … Claims 1 and 11 further recite "monitoring flow of a 'live' transaction, the 'live' transaction being pre-settlement," "matching the live transaction data with the specified transaction data," and "in response to matching the live transaction data with the specified transaction data automatically … Claims 1 and 11 also recite the dual-key initiation and approval mechanism with a "constantly-changing randomized mapping between the screener role and the approver role across a plurality of sub-groups, such that assignments of users to the screener role and the approver role are randomized and updated on an ongoing basis across the plurality of sub-groups," … Taken together, the ordered combination recited by claims 1 and 11-(i) concurrent maintenance of security action triggers alongside live transaction processing, (ii) flag-based identification of pre-settlement transactions impacted by an identified factor … the Examiner's Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis with respect to claim 11 treats "a processor" and "system memory" as the only additional elements and characterizes them as recited at a "high- level of generality." Office Action, page 5. That analysis overlooks the specific technical features recited in the body of claims 1 and 11, including the concurrent processing limitations, the in-flight interruption of a live pre-settlement transaction, and (as amended) the dual-key randomized- mapping mechanism. These features are not generic computer components used as a tool; they define how the transaction processing system itself operates. Even at Prong 1, the Examiner's characterization of claims 1 and 11 as covering "commercial interactions (including sales activities) for processing a transaction between a purchasing entity and a selling entity including allowing and preventing the flow of the 'live' transaction" is overbroad … Even if claims 1 and 11 were considered to recite an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), under Step 2B, the amended limitations of claims 1 and 11 also amount to "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea, considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The combination of (i) "interrupting flow of the 'live' transaction from progressing towards settlement," (ii) subjecting the interrupted transaction to a "dual-key initiation and approval mechanism" with a "constantly-changing randomized mapping" … Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, and claims 12-20 depend from claim 11. These claims incorporate all features of their respective independent claims, including the concurrent processing, in-flight interruption, and dual-key randomized-mapping limitations discussed above, and are therefore patent-eligible for at least the same reasons. Several dependent claims also recite additional specific technical features that further support eligibility. Claims 8 and 18 recite that "a microservice" performs the matching of live transaction data with the specified transaction data- a particular technical implementation that enables the concurrent, in-flight matching recited by claims 1 and 11. Claims 10 and 20 recite "detecting an event through an Application Programming Interface (API)." Claims 7 and 17 recite that, subsequent to killing the "live" transaction, the system performs "reverting a capitalization table to a prior version from before the 'live' transaction started; and re-listing the shares in the asset for sale"-an automatic state rollback of a capitalization table to a pre-transaction version, coupled with automatic re-listing, which is a concrete technological operation on data structures maintained by the transaction processing system. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-5).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 at issue further to the abstract idea does not include additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and amended independent claim 11 at issue further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a processor” and “system memory”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere 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). In addition, none of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination in amended independent claims 1 and 11 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected under the 101 Rejections for dependent from the rejected independent claims 1 and 11. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-20 in the section above.
9. Double Patenting: Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,505,485. An E-Terminal Disclaimer in favor of U.S. Patent No. 12,505,485 is being filed along with this response (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Page 5). Examiner hereby withdraws the Double Patenting Rejections of amended claims 1-20.
Relevant Prior Art
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
11. The best prior art of record, Wilson, JR. et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103385), hereinafter, “Wilson, JR.”, and Creighton, IV (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0321751), hereinafter, “Creighton, IV”, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the instant application claim limitations of "responsive to determining that the identified factor impacts pre-settlement transactions associated with the specified transaction data, setting a flag denoting that pre-settlement transactions associated with the specified transaction data are subject to the one or more supplemental security actions prior to settlement; concurrently with processing transaction flows settling transactions and concurrently with updating and maintaining the set of security action triggers, reviewing a transaction in response to triggering a security action trigger, including: monitoring flow of a “live” transaction, the “live” transaction being pre-settlement and including live transaction data defining exchange of shares in an asset between a buyer of the shares and a seller of the shares; matching the live transaction data with the specified transaction data; and in response to matching the live transaction data with the specified transaction data automatically: interrupting flow of the “live” transaction from progressing towards settlement; and while interrupted, subjecting the “live” transaction to the one or more supplemental security actions triggered in view of the set flag, the one or more supplemental security actions handling any transaction irregularities associated with the identified factor; and (1) allowing the flow of the “live” transaction to resume and the “live” transaction to progress towards settlement subsequent to completion of the one or more supplemental security actions or (2) preventing the flow of the “live” transaction and stopping the “live” transaction from settling based on the one or more supplemental security actions."
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
15. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights