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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after a PTAB decision. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered.
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to RCE filed 07/21/2026.
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-7,9-17,19-21,24-25 and 27 are pending and have been examined.
This action is non-final.
Summary of Claim Rejections
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 1-7,9-17,19-21,24-25 and 271 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner’s Note – Claim Interpretation
Examiner, interprets the claimed term “data objects” may include, under a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant specification:
Data structures each storing transaction data; the transaction data corresponding to financial products (E.g., see ¶134: “ Transaction data is stored in data structures as data objects.”, and ¶137: “… the data objects may be representative of … financial products,” of Applicant specification).
As explained in the 01/31/2024 Final Rejection2, “…data representative of a human concept…”.
Acknowledgement of Issues Raised by Applicant
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-7,9-17,19-21,24-25 and 27 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims not reciting an abstract idea under step 2A Prong I. Additionally, examiner notes Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and Alice/Mayo analysis per the claims providing additional elements that go beyond the judicial exception and either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more, as the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem and include additional elements that are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity3. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 (analysis continues below).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2A Prong I Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2A Prong I and respectfully maintains the claims recite an abstract idea for the following reasons:
Applicant’s arguments are cursory in refuting Examiner’s position and do not argue any specifics of Examiner’s position by merely stating the claims do not recite an abstract idea, and instead draw attention to the additional elements recited by the claims. I.e., Applicant fails to provide any substantive argument specifically addressing as to why the limitations drawn to matching the data objects identified by examiner in their prior step 2A Prong I analysis are (a) not abstract, (b) not recitation of commercial activity and/or data gathering, or (c) not present within the claim limitations identified by examiner. The examiner respectfully presses that claim limitations previously identified positively recite limitations drawn to the abstract idea previously specified. Examiner respectfully notes Applicant’s arguments are not convincing when they fail to provide any substantive underlying reasoning or rationale outlining Applicant’s position as to why the concept of organizing and collecting data and/or commercial practices identified by examiner is, at least one of: (a) non-abstract, and/or (b) not present within the claim limitations identified by examiner. Applicant noting that the claims requiring computer components distinct from the abstract idea identified by examiner in their step 2A Prong I analysis does not sufficiently address these particular deficiencies in the Applicant’s arguments, as "[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer" – see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regardless of Applicant’s asserted basis for eligibility drawn to the computer components / additional elements, examiner fails to see how the aforementioned are not recitations of commercial interactions under step 2A Prong I. The Examiner does not contend that the claimed computer, processor, etc., are abstract. However, the mere inclusion of claim limitations drawn to computer components / additional elements does not necessarily preclude the same aforementioned claims from being considered to recite an abstract idea under step 2A prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis – again, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015), emphasis added: ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This fact is evident in light of the sequence of steps performed during the revised Alice/Mayo test – see MPEP § 2106.04 II A showing a visual summary of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test.
Examiner notes Applicant’s reliance upon the additional elements recited in step2A Prong I are possibly implying a stance that the claims indicate a clear improvement to technology or some computer functionality even at step 2A Prong I, and thus do not need to undergo the full eligibility analysis (see MPEP § 2106.06(b)). However, the examiner notes streamlined analysis is optional and respectfully submits streamlined analysis should not be performed for the instant claims, because there are no claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, which clearly improve technology, or are otherwise self-evidently patent-eligible – see MPEP §2106.06(b): “Only when the claims clearly improve technology or computer functionality, or otherwise have self-evident eligibility, should the streamlined analysis be used”. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully submits that a full eligibility analysis should be performed, consistent with MPEP § 2106.06(b).
Applicant’s arguments are cursory in explaining as to how the linking process is incapable of being performed by the human mind, and the PTAB decision already determined that the claims do recite a mental process – see pages 22-23 of the PTAB decision.
Applicant’s contentions4 drawn to the physicality / concreteness of the claimed invention are not relevant, because, again, as noted in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015): ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer")”. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility – see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”. Accordingly, Examiner respectfully notes that the fact that the elements of the claims aren’t purely conceptual is an irrelevant/incorrect consideration to apply within the Alice/Mayo framework.
The claim limitations are substantially similar to the prior claims, and the 05/21/2026 PTAB decision agreed with Examiner that the claims recite an abstract idea under step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis – see pages 9-10 of the PTAB decision and page 5 of Examiner’s response received 09/17/2025. The incorporation of the abstract initiating step and action-type limitations does not meaningfully change the analysis for the independent claims.
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, as well as the reasons provided in the 101 rejections further below, Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2A Prong I are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully maintains the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong I: Yes – the claims recite an abstract idea).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2A Prong II Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant arguments that the claims are directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or another technology or technical field5 and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the following reasons:
Applicant’s arguments drawn towards (A) “contemporaneous execution”, (B) “reduced network traffic”, and (C) “optimization”, and (D) “compression” were already found unpersuasive both by the examiner and the PTAB – see the 09/17/2024 Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief and the 06/11/2026 PTAB decision; incorporating the abstract initiating step and action-type limitations does not meaningfully change the analysis for the independent claims.
Applicant’s remarks drawn to the Desjardins decision and corresponding USPTO 12/05/2025 memorandum are not persuasive, as neither the claims nor the Alice/Mayo analyses of Desjardins are analogous to the instant claims for at least the following reasons:
The eligibility rationale relied upon in Desjardins included a determination that the claims provided a technological solution to a technological problem at step 2A Prong II6, where the technological problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems was directly addressed7; the claims of Desjardins reflected a particular training strategy that allows the model to preserve performance on earlier tasks learned, even as it learns new ones8. Conversely, the instant claims do not indicate an improvement to any technology or technical field, as previously maintained and explained further below in the 101 rejections – the examiner respectfully maintains the instant claims provide a technical solution to an abstract business problem – see MPEP § 2106.05(a): “[I]t is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology… Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient…”. Unlike Desjardins, Examiner respectfully fails to see as to how the instant claim limitations provide any particular technological solution to a technological problem, as the instant claims do not reflect any technological solution addressing technological problems concerned with the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – what is addressed is how to reduce the number of resting orders of orderbooks (e.g., via relaxing matching constraints). The basis of the purported improvements asserted by Applicant can only be explained by aspects of the abstract financial order matching, and not anything necessarily rooted in technology9.
The additional elements “computer”, “, by a processor,”, “, by the processor,”, “, by the processor,” and “over an electronic communications network having a network load” of claim 1, and the additional elements “A system for”, “the system comprising a processor; a memory couple with the processor; … stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the processor to”, “stored in the memory an executable by the processor”, “the processor to”, and “…over an electronic communications network having a network load,” of claim 12, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The following claim limitations are a statement of intended use and have limited patentable weight (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)):
1) thereby reducing the network load relative to separate non- linked execution;
2)thereby reducing the resultant stored number of data objects relative to that in absence of linking within the statistical range
Applicant’s specification and claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)). This supports the aforementioned determination that the additional elements of the independent claims are merely applied. See MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1): “…claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’”.
With respect to the “data objects” claim limitations whose claim interpretation is disagreed upon between Applicant and examiner, examiner respectfully maintains, that, arguendo, even if the data resources representing abstract financial information were necessarily limited to some generic technological aspect provided within Applicant specification, and, therefore, an additional element (,of which examiner does not agree), those generic details do not indicate anything other than those “data resources” (A) being used at a high degree of generality and (B) acting as a stand-in for abstract information directed to the abstract idea recited, such that they do nothing more than amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)).
Applicant’s arguments drawn to “Powerblock Holdings, Inc. v Ifit Inc.,”, and the physicality of “selectively grouping physical containers and physically transferring the grouped containers”10 are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The independent claims do not require physical transfer of grouped containers. It is self-evident when reading claims 1 and 12 that no claim limitation of the independent claims require this.
The limitations “…physical delivery of the corresponding number of the one or more non-standard size containers for [the] linked pair of opposing data objects” of dependent claim 9 are recitations of the abstract idea recited11.
Even assuming the above limitations of claim 9 amounted to an additional element, there is no particular mechanism described by which this “cause” for “physical delivery of the corresponding number of the one or more non-standard size containers for [the] linked pair of opposing data objects” occurs. See MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1): “…claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’” and MPEP§2106.04(d)(1): “Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two: The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”
In the case of system claim 19, it recites “A system … comprising: a processor … a memory … eighth logic stored in the memory and executable by the processor …wherein … the eighth logic is further executable to cause the processor to execute each linked pair of opposing data objects by causing a physical delivery of the corresponding whole number of the one or more … containers …”. Applicant’s specification and claims do not support Applicant’s narrow interpretation that the above claim limitations in question necessarily means the system’s processor, when executed with the eighth logic, directly causes physical delivery; i.e., the (literal) physical transfer of physical (e.g., liquid natural gas, corn, etc.,) assets – there is nothing disclosed in Applicant’s specification that explains as to how a generic processor utilizing the non-descript “eighth logic” could do this by itself (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)). The only reasonable interpretation is that the logic indirectly causes this to occur, e.g., as a matter of issuance of a directive; I.e., under a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the dependent claims are still not necessarily limited to directly affecting a physical change in the case of the system claim, as argued by Applicant.
In order for Applicant’s arguments drawn to affecting a physical change being persuasive for system claim 19, Applicant would have to persuasively explain as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably construe the eighth logic being ran on a processor can directly affect such a physical change, given the Applicant’s disclosure. Examiner respectfully maintains Applicant cannot meet such a burden in light of (A) the specification’s disclosure failing to provide sufficient disclosure as to how a generic / non-descript processor could directly “caus[e] … a physical delivery of the corresponding whole number of the one or more … containers12 …”, and (B) one of ordinary skill in the art’s understanding of the physical limitations of a generic computer processor13.
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, as well as in the 101 rejections further below, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application), as the focus of the claims is not an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claims do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract idea within a particular technological environment, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field.
Accordingly, in view of the analysis performed with respect to steps 2A Prong I and 2A Prong II, the examiner respectfully maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea under step 2A (Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea).
Examiner’s Response to Step 2B Arguments
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments drawn to step 2B and respectfully maintains the claims do not provide an inventive concept for the following reasons:
The same reasons identified in the examiner’s step 2A Prong II analysis and subsequent supporting rationales (in the section immediately above) are generally applicable to step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis, and still indicate the additional elements as being merely applied and generally limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, absent of any particular technological solution to a technological problem. See MPEP § 2106.05: “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two.”
Applicant’s arguments drawn to Enfish are not persuasive for the same reasons in the Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief (pages 24-25).
Applicant’s arguments drawn to Bascom are cursory, and do not base the argument upon any particular technological details (e.g., specific additional elements, or a specific ordered combination of additional elements) claimed.
The well-understood, routine, and conventional rationale must include involvement of the additional elements / components outside the abstract idea – not just the abstract idea itself. see TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C. 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748, underline and bold emphasis added: “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. I.e., The details of the abstract idea”" indicated by Applicant in remarks are an insufficient basis for patent eligibility under the “well-understood, routine, and conventional” rationale – see also the following case law and MPEP cites:
MPEP § 2106 I:
“eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claimed invention has utility, because "[u]tility is not the test for patent-eligible subject matter." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1380, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151:
“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty” (emphasis omitted).
BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
“It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
MPEP § 2106.05, underline emphasis added:
“…An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." … Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).”.
SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 17-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature [i.e., where it lies entirely within the realm of abstract ideas,] is ineligible for patenting…Under the principles developed in interpreting §101, patent law does not protect such claims, without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”
It is for the reasons / considerations above that Applicant’s cursory arguments drawn to the ordered combination are not persuasive, as those arguments do not provide sufficient basis for why the additional elements themselves go beyond mere performance of well understood, routine, conventional activities.
Accordingly, when considered both separately and as an ordered combination, none of the elements of the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited. The claims merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by merely invoking computers as tools, and do not provide any particular improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field14 (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (f), (h), 2106.04(d)(1)). Merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself, as indicated by BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018); (Step 2B: No, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception).
Hence, for the reasons listed above, as well as the reasons provided in 101 rejections further below, the Examiner respectfully maintains the claims do not provide an inventive concept15 under step 2B of Alice/Mayo analysis, and maintains the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101, when analyzed under the Alice/Mayo test.
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 1-7,9-17,19-21,24-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test16. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
With respect Step 1 of Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims are either directed to a system, product of manufacture, or method. Therefore, each of the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
Based upon consideration of all relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-7,9-17,19-21,24-25 and 27 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea of matching linked objects. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
Prior to step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo analysis, examiner notes they have identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis under step 2A Prong I, as method claim 1 is analogous to system claim 12 under step 2A Prong I analysis. I.e., the step 2A Prong I Alice/Mayo rationales applied to claim 1 (below) are similarly applied to claim 12, mutatis mutandis.
With respect Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis, claims 1-7,9-17,19-21,24-25 and 27 recite as a whole a method of organizing human activity because independent claims 1 and 12 each recite claim limitations drawn to:
“A … implemented method for data object linking and equivalence, the … implemented method comprising:
obtaining… statistical data for a quantity of an item;
causing initiation, at a time of a pre-defined last-trading date associated with the item, of a constraint-based optimization procedure;
determining, … based on the statistical data, a statistical range of acceptable data object quantities to support effectiveness of the constraint-based optimization procedure;
collecting, …and responsive to the initiation, a plurality of data objects, each data object of the plurality of data objects having a respective quantity falling within the statistical range of acceptable data object quantities, the plurality of data objects involving physical delivery of an item for which partial loading is not permitted, the physical delivery having delivery constraints but not a standard delivery size, each data object having an action-type, the action-type comprising one of a first action-type and a second action-type opposite the first action-type;
structuring the plurality of data objects by assigning each data object to a respective one of a plurality of queues based on the action-type of the data object;
implementing … the constraint-based optimization procedure to link pairs of data objects having opposing action types of the plurality of data objects with one another, the constraint-based optimization procedure having a constraint that the respective quantities of the data objects in each pair of opposing data objects fall within a predetermined offset magnitude of one another, the pairs of opposing data objects each obtained from pairs of queues associated with opposing action-types;
determining … for each linked pair of opposing data objects, an offset amount for the linked pair of opposing data objects, the offset amount corresponding with an offset between the respective quantities of the linked pair of opposing data objects, the offset amount establishing a matched quantity for the linked pair of opposing data objects, wherein the offset amount is determined via an adjustment procedure for one of the data objects of each linked pair of opposing data objects to which the offset amount is applied to the respective quantity to reach the matched quantity;
applying … for each linked pair of opposing data objects, the offset amount to a record associated with one of the linked pair of opposing data objects to attain equivalence of the linked pair of opposing data objects; and
executing … via a message for each linked pair of opposing data objects … the opposing data objects as a linked pair …;
wherein the adjustment procedure is configured such that the physical quantity does not equal the matched quantity for some of the linked pairs of opposing data objects,
wherein the constraint-based optimization procedure has a further constraint directed to maximizing a number of opposing pairs of data objects linked via the constraint-based optimization procedure … ; and
wherein the constraint-based optimization procedure is configured to minimize the offset amount corresponding with the offset for each linked pair of opposing data objects.”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, these are commercial interactions of gathering trading data and matching trading positions with counterparties based on business considerations set as mathematical optimization constraints. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong I: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Additionally, when analyzed under prong I of revised step 2A, claims 1-7,9-17,19-21,24-25 and 27 recite mathematical concepts because independent claims 1 and 12 each recite claim limitations drawn to:
“1. A … implemented method for data object linking and equivalence, the … implemented method comprising:
obtaining … statistical data for a quantity of an item;
causing initiation, at a time of a pre-defined last-trading date associated with the item, of a constraint-based optimization procedure;
determining … based on the statistical data, a statistical range of acceptable data object quantities to support effectiveness of the constraint-based optimization procedure;
collecting, … and responsive to the initiation, a plurality of data objects, each data object of the plurality of data objects having a respective quantity falling within the statistical range of acceptable data object quantities, the plurality of data objects involving physical delivery of an item for which partial loading is not permitted, the physical delivery having delivery constraints but not a standard delivery size, each data object having an action-type, the action-type comprising one of a first action-type and a second action-type opposite the first action-type;
…
implementing … the constraint-based optimization procedure to link pairs of data objects having opposing action types of the plurality of data objects with one another, the constraint-based optimization procedure having a constraint that the respective quantities of the data objects in each pair of opposing data objects fall within a predetermined offset magnitude of one another, the pairs of opposing data objects each obtained from pairs of queues associated with opposing action-types;
determining … for each linked pair of opposing data objects, an offset amount for the linked pair of opposing data objects, the offset amount corresponding with an offset between the respective quantities of the linked pair of opposing data objects, the offset amount establishing a matched quantity for the linked pair of opposing data objects, wherein the offset amount is determined via an adjustment procedure for one of the data objects of each linked pair of opposing data objects to which the offset amount is applied to the respective quantity to reach the matched quantity;
applying… for each linked pair of opposing data objects, the offset amount to a record associated with one of the linked pair of opposing data objects to attain equivalence of the linked pair of opposing data objects; and
executing … via a message for each linked pair of opposing data objects … the opposing data objects as a linked pair
wherein the adjustment procedure is configured such that the physical quantity does not equal the matched quantity for some of the linked pairs of opposing data objects,
wherein the constraint-based optimization procedure has a further constraint directed to maximizing a number of opposing pairs of data objects linked via the constraint-based optimization procedure … and
wherein the constraint-based optimization procedure is configured to minimize the offset amount corresponding with the offset for each linked pair of opposing data objects. ”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the above claim limitations are recitation of mathematical calculations17. Hence, independent claims 1 and 12 recite an additional abstract idea when analyzed under Step 2A Prong I of the Alice/Mayo test. Adding one abstract idea (e.g., the aforementioned mathematical calculations) to another (e.g., the claimed gathering and matching trading data) does not render a claim non-abstract – see MPEP § 2106.04 II A 2 citing RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. 855 F.3d 1322.
Additionally, as noted in the PTAB decision, the claims recite a mental process – see pages 22-23 of the PTAB decision and footnote number 3 on page 4 of the 1/31/2024 Final Rejection, in further view of the following limitations drawn to the data objects: “[claim 1] … determining … a statistical range of acceptable data object quantities … collecting … a plurality of data objects, each data object of the plurality of data objects having a respective quantity falling within … [a] statistical range of acceptable data object quantities, … link pairs of data objects having opposing action types of the plurality of data objects with one another … [based on a] constraint that the respective quantities of data objects in each pair of opposing data objects fall within a predetermined offset magnitude of one another … determining … for each linked pair of opposing data objects, the offset amount corresponding with an offset between the respective quantities of the linked pair of opposing data objects, the offset establishing a matched quantity for the linked pair of opposing data objects, wherein the offset amount is determined via an adjustment procedure for one of the data objects of each linked pair of opposing data objects to which the offset amount is applied to the respective quantity to reach the matched quantity … applying … for each linked pair of opposing data objects, the offset amount to a record associated with one of the linked pair of opposing data objects to attain equivalence of the linked pair of opposing data objects; …”.
Prior to step 2A Prong II Alice/Mayo analysis, Examiner notes the following preliminary matters:
Consistent with guidance set forth in MPEP §2106.04 II B18, Examiner, under step 2A Prong II and step 2B analysis, treats the identified abstract ideas of claims the claims as a single abstract idea of ‘order matching’, as the mathematical concepts and mental processes identified in step 2A prong I are in furtherance of the abstract order matching recited.
This judicial exception recited in independent claims 1 and 12 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test:
The additional elements “computer”, “, by a processor,”, “, by the processor,”, “, by the processor,” and “over an electronic communications network having a network load” of claim 1, and the additional elements “A system for”, “the system comprising a processor; a memory couple with the processor; … stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the processor to”, “stored in the memory an executable by the processor”, “the processor to”, and “…over an electronic communications network having a network load,” of claim 12, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
While the examiner respectfully maintains the data objects are abstract, Examiner notes, arguendo, they are merely applied at a high degree of generality (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and used to merely encapsulate data drawn to the abstract idea recited at a high degree of generality. Simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The following claim limitations are a statement of intended use and have limited to no patentable weight (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)):
1) thereby reducing the network load relative to separate non- linked execution;
2)thereby reducing the resultant stored number of data objects relative to that in absence of linking within the statistical range
The claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform an abstract business process (e.g., the recited order matching – see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2)).
The Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)).
An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). See the following:
MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015): “... our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract order matching, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test: The claims are directed to an abstract idea).
When analyzed under step 2B, claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 12, each when viewed as a whole, do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more, as their elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract order matching concept within a particular technological environment, absent of any particular technological details that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Even though claims 1 and 12 utilize a computer / system, processor, memory, etc., the manner by which the claims’ additional elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited, as even the ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Worded differently, the ordered combination of elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, as nothing in the claims indicate specific steps undertaken by the computer elements that are beyond conventional functionality of generic network-accessible computers being used at a high degree of generality, excepting the abstract idea it is merely used as a tool for – the claimed computer implementation itself is wholly generic when viewed in light of the technological environment of computer networks and computer technology. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Hence, none of the elements of the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, the dependent claims have been given the full analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, 21, and 24-25, the additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, as the claims do not recite any further additional elements outside of the abstract idea and also do not indicate that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either individually or as an ordered combination. For these reasons the dependent claims 2-7, 10-11, 13-17, 21, and 24-25 are also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 20 and 27, the additional limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not recite additional elements outside of the abstract idea that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims fail to establish that the previously mentioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, and the claims merely utilize processor at a high degree of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) – see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, in view of the claims failing to establish that the aforementioned additional elements are successfully integrated / amounting to significantly more, either alone or in combination, the aforementioned dependent claims are not patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Written Description
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites19 “A system … comprising: a processor … a memory … eighth logic stored in the memory and executable by the processor …wherein … the eighth logic is further executable to cause the processor to execute each linked pair of opposing data objects by causing a physical delivery of the corresponding whole number of the one or more … containers …”. The specification does not provide adequate written description explaining as to how a generic processor indistinguishable from a general-purpose processor can cause a physical delivery … of containers, to one of ordinary skill in the art. There is no written description detailing as to how or what specific mechanism allows for said generic processor to cause said physical delivery of containers.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession”, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the mechanism for performing the functionality are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Furthermore, simply re-stating the claim limitations ipsis verbis is not sufficient to show possession. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed functionality – the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. See Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015), “Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112”, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019), and MPEP § 2161.01 I.
Specification provides no description of what particular steps / procedures are involved for the generic processor to achieve the claimed functional language – this is insufficient detail to identify as to how the invention achieves the claimed functionality and does not lend to a reasonable conclusion that the inventor has actually invented the claimed invention. As noted in MPEP § 2161.01 I: “…[O]riginal claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.”. In particular, MPEP § 2161.01 I notes a requirement that an “…algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function … [is] described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed."
As noted above, claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. However, the specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in allowing for a generic processor to cause said physical delivery, which would necessarily involve some physical mechanism manipulable by the processor that has not been described. Since these important details about how the invention operates are not disclosed, it is not readily evident that Applicant has possession of the invention at the time of filing. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP § 2161.01 – § 2163.07(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 I.e., the subject matter claimed.
2 See footnote number 3 on page 4 of the 1/31/2024 Final Rejection.
3 See pages 9-18 of Applicant Remarks received 07/21/2026.
4 Page 12 and 14 of Remarks.
5 I.e., a technological solution to a technological problem.
6 See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
7 See pages 7 and 9 of the Desjardins decision.
8 Again, see pages 7 and 9 of the Desjardins decision.
9 See page 16 and 22-23 of the PTAB decision.
10 See pages 1-11 of Remarks.
11 Examiner notes “Physical delivery” is generally known as a finance term referring to physical transfer of assets underlying futures contracts, in the context of financial futures contracts.
12 Examiner notes Applicant’s specification reasonably suggests the physical “containers” as those corresponding to Liquified Natural gas containers for ships. It is clearly beyond the capability of a generic computer processor to affect a change on such a physical object (or any physical object), regardless of what logic it possesses. Applicant’s specification only provides descriptions of generic processors, and does not at all contemplate any changes or modifications to the system or processor that would realistically enable a processor to directly act as an agent performing “…physical delivery…” of such objects.
13 While not drawn to Alice/Mayo analysis, the examiner respectfully maintains that, even if Applicant argument were found persuasive and the claim limitation in question was construed to be necessarily limited to processors directly imparting a physical change, dependent claim 19 would still face 112(a) written description issues, by virtue of the claim not having written description support for such a narrow embodiment.
14 I.e., a technological solution to a technological problem.
15 I.e., “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
16 See MPEP § 2106 I.
17 MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) I C
18MPEP §2106.04 II B, underline emphasis added: “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea for Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B ... rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually.”
19 At least in part, by virtue of dependency of independent claim 12.
Prosecution Insights