DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed February 27, 2026, is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 6, 8-15, 19, 22, and 23 have been amended. Claims 2-5, 9, 10, 16-18, 20, and 21 have been canceled. Claims 1, 6-8, 11-15, 19, 22, and 23 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112(a) Rejection, starting pg. 17 of Remarks:
II. REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 11-15, 17, 19, 22, and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 3, 4, and 17 have been canceled, rendering their rejection moot.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Nevertheless, claims 1, 15, and 23 have been amended to remove the limitations relating to "homogenize", "data size being independent of a number of values in the range of values", and "replacing".
Noted. The rejection is withdrawn to sections (6) and (8) in the Non-Final Rejection based on the claim amendments. The section rejection (7) rejection has been amended but remains.
Accordingly, Applicants submit that claims 1, 15, and 23, and dependent claims 3, 4, 6-8, 11-14, 17, 19, and 22 do comply with the written description requirement and respectfully request that rejection be withdrawn.
The section (6) and (8) are withdrawn, but the section (7) appears to still be a problem.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 18 of Remarks:
III. REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 11-15, 17, 19, 22, and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant submits that the present claims are not directed to an abstract idea, i.e., they are not directed to methods of organizing human activity, that is, the claims are not directed to a fundamental economic practice or to a mental process. Instead, the current claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer and network technology. The current claims are directed to a specific, technological solution to the technical problem of managing network congestion and processor load in a high-performance, distributed computing system. Further, the current claims recite a new system architecture including the linking processor that fundamentally improves how the system manages data coherency and network traffic across multiple, parallel processing nodes.
With all due respect, the amended claims are directed to using equations as financial transactions.
In particular, the current claims recite a specific multi-component architecture comprising a client computer that generates a new compressed message format, a linking processor, and a plurality of discrete-value match engines. This is not a "generic computer" as asserted by the Examiner. Instead, the current claims provide a specific, non-conventional system architecture designed to solve a concrete technical problem: integrating a compressed message format with a system of parallel match engines. This is a technical solution to a technical integration problem, as detailed in paragraphs [00400] - [00401] and illustrated in FIG. 15 of the specification. As noted, by Applicants'
Compressed is not claimed and using equations for transactions has been found to be abstract.
Specification:
[00400] In one embodiment, traders may submit equation-based messages even if the target financial instrument is not an equation-based financial instrument. The exchange computing system may then devolve each equation-based electronic data transaction request message into the different financial instruments represented by the single equation-based electronic data transaction request message.
[00401] In one embodiment, a data transaction processing system that matches discrete values may include a match engine / order book linker that receives equation- based electronic data transaction request messages and devolves a message into discrete values for financial instruments encompassed in the electronic data transaction request message. The linker may be implemented as a linking processor.... See Applicants' Specification, paras. [00400] and [00401].
Furthermore, in Ex Parte Desjardins, the ARP reversed and stated that "[under] a charitable view, the overbroad reasoning of the original panel ... is perhaps understandable given the confusing nature of existing § 101 jurisprudence, but troubling, because this case highlights what is at stake ... Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality." See Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 of U.S. App. No. 16/319,040, page 9 (ARP September 26, 2025).
Desjardins was about improving machine learning technology.
The central holding of Desjardins is that claims are patent-eligible when they are directed to a specific improvement in the functioning of computer technology itself, rather than merely using a computer to automate a human process. In Desjardins, the claims improved how an artificial intelligence AI model itself operated by enabling it to learn new tasks without forgetting old ones. The current claims are not merely using a computer to process trades more efficiently. Instead, the current claims provide an analogous improvement to the functioning of a distributed data transaction processing system. The current claims recite a new system architecture including the linking processor that fundamentally improves how the system manages data coherency and network traffic across multiple, parallel processing nodes.
In particular, as noted above, a specific technological improvement recited in the current claims include a specific architecture for system integration. The current claims include a linking processor that devolves a modern, compact message format into a format for a plurality of discrete-value match engines. This is a specific solution to the technical problem of integrating new technology with existing infrastructure. This architecture is a concrete logical structure and process, which the ARP in Desjardins (citing Enfish) affirmed is a valid basis for defining a technological improvement.
Another specific technological improvement recited in the current claims include a novel data management workflow to solve a technical problem of data integrity (See Applicants, Specification, para. [00397]), a problem unique to computer-based trading systems. For example, claim 1 recites:
associating... a single total transaction quantity with the entire plurality of
discrete transaction values...; and
in response to the notification, automatically generating and transmitting, by the linking processor, one or more modification messages to the other
discrete-value match engines to reduce the quantity available...
The above “to reduce the quantity available” is intended use language, is not improving computer technology itself, and discrete-value is related to financial transactions, an abstract idea. Improving an abstract idea is not improving a technology.
This is a specific, non-conventional data management protocol. Conventional systems either force the client computer to send a flood of modification messages or risk over- execution. The claimed system architecture, with its intermediary linking processor, centralizes this logic, thereby "obviating the need to generate and transmit" numerous messages from the client. See Applicants, Specification, paras. [00310] and [00399]. This is a direct improvement to the functioning of the client-server system, reducing network congestion and improving data integrity.
From Claim 15…
“route each of the series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages to a corresponding one of a plurality of discrete-value match engines, each discrete-value match engine configured to process transactions for one of the discrete transaction values;
receive a notification from one of the discrete-value match engines that a transaction has been processed for a portion of the single total transaction quantity; and
in response to the notification, automatically generate and transmit, by the linking processor, one or more modification messages to the other discrete-value match engines of the plurality of discrete-value match engines to reduce the quantity available for the remaining, linked discrete-value messages.”
With all due respect, the above is about fulfilling transaction orders. If an order is partially filled by one matching engine, then notify the other matching engine about the order so the order can be modified, which is abstract.
Therefore, similar to Desjardins, the claims are directed to eligible subject matter at least in view of Enfish. As stated in Enfish, the "conclusion that the claims are directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered by the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits ... such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements." See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016)."
Using matching engines for order fulfillment is not improving technology but is an abstract idea.
The combination of steps recited show that the claim is not to the idea of undertaking a financial transaction or a mathematical concept, but rather that the steps impose meaningful limits that allow for execution of equation-based transactions in an electronic trading system.
By utilizing single equation-based electronic transaction messages, a large amount of information may be communicated to, and managed by, e.g., an electronic trading system, using a smaller amount of data, a clear technical improvement. Network transmission in electronic trading systems is improved, and processing time is reduced via reduction of the number of discrete electronic data transaction messages that must be processed.
Respectfully, this has been ruled on by the PTAB. Equation transactions are abstract.
Furthermore, in Ex Parte Annakov, the PTAB has rejected a "broad-brush approach in identifying purported recitations of abstract ideas [as being] overly inclusive". See Ex Parte Annakov, Appeal No. 2023-003538 of U.S. App. No. 16/902,544 p.13 (PTAB 2024).
Like the claims in Annakov, the claims herein recite a complex process and interactions that control how various specifically configured hardware elements, e.g., the client computer, the linking processor, and the discrete-value match engines, interact. See Id. Hence, as was the case in Annakov, the Examiner's analysis herein is insufficient. The Examiner cannot short cut the Alice analysis by simply alleging that "recited structural components that interact with each other" are abstract and then stating that the claim is ineligible without "swallow[ing] all of patent law." Id at 14 (quoting MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216)).
PTAB rulings are case specific. The above case is about a distributed service transaction system.
The present claims, like those in Desjardins and Annakov, are directed to a specific improvement in the functioning of a computer system itself. The claimed architecture including the linking processor and its associated data synchronization workflow provide a specific, technological solution to technical problems of data coherency and network congestion in a distributed computing environment.
Applicant’s claims cannot guarantee an improvement to network congestion. Using an equation as a transaction is may or may not result in a smaller message. Using the matching engines does not guarantee an improvement to congestion as clamed.
Also, from Applicant’s specification…
“In accordance with various embodiments of the present disclosure, the methods described herein may be implemented by software programs executable by a computer system. Further, in an exemplary, non-limited embodiment, implementations can include distributed processing, component/object distributed processing, and parallel processing. Alternatively, virtual computer system processing can be constructed to implement one or more of the methods or functionality as described herein.” [00120]
Therefore, parallel processing is known.
The claims do not attempt to monopolize the idea but rather only the improvement as applied to a specific technology, that of data lookups in a set of queues stored in a non- transitory memory.
Step 1 - The claims are drawn to a statutory category
For step 1 as set forth in MPEP § 2106, the claims are directed to processes or apparatuses, so they are drawn to a statutory category. Claims 15 and 23 are drawn to a machine and claim 1 is drawn to a process and as such fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A. - The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
Step 2A as set forth in MPEP § 2106 is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, the question is whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Supreme Court has cautioned that "[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas," and has cautioned "to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law." See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216.
Applicant submits that the claims are not abstract but instead are directed to a novel improvement to a specific technology.
Step 2A - Prong One
For step 2A as set forth in MPEP § 2106, the Non-Final Office Action states that the claims were directed to the judicial exception of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Mental Process, and Mathematical Algorithms." See the Final Office Action dated December 1, 2025, page 35.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejection are moot as the claims have been extensively amended, requiring a new rejection.
The claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Supreme Court has cautioned that "[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas," and has cautioned "to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law." See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216.
Applicant respectfully submits that the current claims recite a specific multi- component architecture comprising a client computer, a linking processor, and a plurality of discrete-value match engines. Applicant submits that the invention as claimed provides technological improvements that are not limited to prior transaction technologies and the technological field of processing data transaction request messages but that also include improvements both to data communications and to computing systems.
Further, the claimed data synchronization recited in the current claims cannot be performed in the human mind, or by using pen and paper. As noted by Applicant's Specification:
[0027] The equation-based electronic data transaction request messages are much smaller in size and complexity than discrete-value-based electronic data transaction request messages. Specifically, the disclosed embodiments provide systems and methods for receiving, and performing transactions implementing, equation-based electronic data transaction request messages. The disclosed embodiments enable client computers to submit requests including equations defining a desired set of price points for different derivative instruments, which greatly reduces the amount of messages submitted to the data transaction processing system. A data transaction processing system may typically receive millions of messages per day, so the equation-based electronic data transaction request messages can significantly reduce overall network congestion. In one embodiment, the disclosed embodiments may implement a specific order type and a specific transaction processor, e.g., hardware matching processor, for processing the order type. See Applicant's Specification, para. [0027].
Therefore, the claims are not abstract.
The amended claims remain abstract as they are direct to financial transactions.
Step 2A - Prong Two
However, assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner concludes that the claims recite a judicial exception, the claims are not abstract as the claims are integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Even if the claim were considered to recite a judicial exception, the judicial exception is integrated as part of a concrete mechanism that transforms how messages are generated, transmitted, and stored within a computer system. The integration of that mechanism into the overall system demonstrates a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO eligibility framework.
In particular, the current claims provide a technical solution to the problem of data being transmitted via a communications network and being stored in a memory. In particular, the current claims are at least integrated into a practical application which provides a technical improvement to the technological field of transmitting, receiving, processing, storing, and amending electronic data transaction request messages. Specifically, the claims are directed to a system/process for compressing discrete-values into a single equation-based data transaction request message by generating a first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message over a data communications network, wherein the data representative of the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message is characterized by a smaller data size than data representative of the series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages each including one of the range of values, wherein the data size of the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message being is independent of a quantity of discrete transaction values within the plurality of discrete transaction values defined by the first equation.
The above message is independent of a quantity is not taught in Applicant’s disclosure. In any event, this is about financial transactions, therefore this would be abstract.
The combination of steps recited show that the claim is not to the idea of undertaking a financial transaction or a mathematical concept, but rather that the steps impose meaningful limits that allow for execution of equation-based transactions in an electronic trading system.
By utilizing single equation-based electronic transaction messages, a large amount of information may be communicated to, and managed by, e.g., an electronic trading system, using a smaller amount of data, a clear technical improvement. Network transmission in electronic trading systems is improved.
Applicant submits that the invention as claimed provides improvements that are not limited to prior transaction technologies and the technological field of generating, transmitting, processing, storing, and updating electronic data transaction request messages. Instead, the current claims provide a specific, non-conventional system architecture designed to solve a concrete technical problem: integrating a compressed message format with a system of parallel match engines. This is a technical solution to a technical integration problem.
Further, the claims are directed to solving a technical problem in both data
communications and in computing systems where a large volume of data transaction request messages is transmitted over a network from client computers, and the data transaction request messages are frequently updated/modified by the submitter because the data transaction request messages derive from an underlying source that is constantly fluctuating.
Furthermore, Applicant's Specification describes technical problems and improvements to technology which are reflected in the claims:
[00315] One equation-based electronic data transaction request message may be able to convey information that would normally require multiple discrete-value-based electronic data transaction request messages. For example, one equation-based electronic data transaction request message can represent hundreds of different combinations of premium prices, strike prices, and maturities. Thus, submitting equation-based electronic data transaction request messages can greatly reduce the amount of information that is transmitted to the data transaction processing system.
[00316] Another advantage of submitting equation-based electronic data transaction request messages may be a reduction of the effects of transmission disparities between different client computers submitting equation-based electronic data transaction request messages. In particular, as is known message / packet size can have a large impact on the transmission speed of a message. Equation-based electronic data transaction request messages are expected to be the same or similar size, because they may define the same list of fields (e.g., see Figs. 4 and 5). When different client computers submit messages of nearly the same size, any transmission speed differences from the two client computers to the data transaction processing system may be mollified. See Applicant's Specification, paras. [00315] - [00316].
[00318] The equation-based data transaction processing system also reduces the amount of data that is necessary to submit to the exchange computing system to update or modify previously sent electronic data transaction request messages. This may also improve the speed at which changes can be completed by the data transaction processing system. Once a client computer has submitted an equation- based electronic data transaction request message, the submitting trader may be able
to modify the equation by simply submitting updates or changes to the submitted equation. Without an equation-based messaging system, a client computer may need to submit hundreds of messages to change a strategy. In an equation-based data transaction processing system, one update message can convey all of the new desired prices, without needing to specifically identify each new desired price. The update message may change how the variables are related to each other, the values of constants in the equation, or may specify parameters for one. See Applicant's Specification, para. [00318].
Equation-based transactions have been found to be abstract.
The current claims provide a practical application that enables the client computer to compress discrete values and to generate and submit an equation-based electronic data transaction request message including an equation having two variables and parameters for one of the variables as a trade order instead of submitting discrete-value based electronic data transaction request messages. Therefore, the current claims reduce transmission disparities between client computers by reducing the format of the electronic data transaction request messages to near-equivalent, uniform data sizes which levels the playing field among participants by reducing the effects of transmission speed differences associated with submitting large sets of discrete electronic data transaction request messages, ensuring that a participant's orders may be registered and entered on the exchange as quickly as possible. Therefore, the current claims result in lower latency and reduction in communication, processing, storing, and modifying required by the computer system which allows participants to enter equation-based electronic data transaction request messages with reduced exchange hardware requirements.
Equation-based transactions have been found to be abstract.
As noted by the MPEP:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. See the MPEP §2106.05(a).
The claimed invention is a specific and practical application which improves upon the ability to process transactions specifically in electronic trading systems.
Therefore, the current claims recite a specific technological solution that improves the operation of a computer network by reducing message size, optimizing memory utilization, and improving transaction processing efficiency.
Accordingly, similar to Finjan (and DDR), the claims provide an improvement to a specific technology and as such are not abstract.
A reduced message size is not improving technology. Finjan and DDR were not about financial transactions but about virus software and web page improvement.
Step 2B - Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More (Search for an
Inventive Concept)
However, assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner concludes that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, Applicant submits that for step 2B as set forth in MPEP § 2106, the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106 provides that: "Step 2A Prong Two determines whether: ... [the] claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application, in which case the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an inventive concept). See, MPEP §2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception into A Practical Application [R-10.2019]. Further:
[t]he second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept... 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, 110USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73,101 USPQ2d at 1966).
The recited components including the client computer, the linking processor and the discrete-value match engines, cooperate in a specific, non-conventional arrangement to achieve the stated performance improvements. This configuration provides the requisite "inventive concept" under Step 2B, as it applies mathematical data compression not in the abstract but as a structural and operational modification to computer-based data exchange systems.
In particular, the claims recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the exception itself, limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. For example, claim 1 recites "generating, by a client computer, data representative of a first equation that defines a relationship between a range of values of a first variable at which to perform a transaction of a first type on a first quantity of a data object and a range of values for corresponding parameters of a second variable defining a characteristic of the data object, wherein the first equation defines a plurality of discrete transaction values; generating, based on the data representative of the first equation, by the client computer, a first single equation- based electronic data transaction request message in lieu of a series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages that would otherwise be required to represent the plurality of discrete transaction values, thereby avoiding the generation and transmission of the series of discrete-value messages;associating, by the client computer, a single total transaction quantity with the plurality of discrete transaction values defined by the first equation;transmitting, by the client computer, to the data transaction processing system, the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message; receiving, by a linking processor of the data transaction processing system, the linking processor specifically configured to receive the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message over a data communications network, wherein the data representative of the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message is characterized by a smaller data size than data representative of the series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages each including one of the range of values, wherein the data size of the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message being is independent of a quantity of discrete transaction values within the plurality of discrete transaction values defined by the first equation;devolving, by the linking processor of the data transaction processing system, the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message into a series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages, each discrete-value message corresponding to one of the plurality of discrete transaction values defined by the first equation; maintaining, by the linking processor, a link between the series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages and the single total transaction quantity; routing, by the linking processor, each of the series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages to a corresponding one of a plurality of discrete- value match engines, each discrete-value match engine configured to process transactions for one of the discrete transaction values; receiving, by the linking processor, a notification from one of the discrete-value match engines that a transaction has been processed for a portion of the single total transaction quantity; and in response to the notification, automatically generating and transmitting, by the linking processor, one or more modification messages to the other discrete-value match engines of the plurality of discrete-value match engines to reduce the quantity available for the remaining, linked discrete-value messages", which are additional elements that provide "something more" than mere computer implementation of communicating information to undertake a financial transaction.
The combination of steps recited show that the claim is not to the idea of undertaking a financial transaction or a mathematical concept, but rather directed to a specific, unconventional system architecture comprising a linking processor that implements a novel data synchronization workflow. This architecture provides a concrete technical solution to the technical problem of data integrity by associating a single total transaction quantity with a plurality of discrete values and automatically managing that quantity upon a partial match, thereby obviating the need for a flood of modification messages. The current claims recite a specific improvement to the functioning of the distributed data processing system. The resulting system provides tangible, measurable improvements to computer technology, including reduced network congestion, improved processor efficiency, and enhanced data coherency across parallel processing nodes. Accordingly, because the claims as a whole is directed to a specific improvement in computer technology and not a patent-ineligible abstract idea, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Accordingly, the claims recite an inventive concept and significantly more than the judicial exception. "If the examiner determines that the element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (Step 2B: YES), the claim is eligible." 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
Using parallel processing would not be improving a technology.
Should the Examiner disagree that Applicant's claims amount to "significantly more," Applicant requests that the Examiner refer to the USPTO Memorandum dated April 19, 2018 entitled Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) which dictates how the Examiner should properly address and support an assertion that the claims do not provide "something more," so as to address each and every element of Applicant's claim to show that the claimed limitations, in the claimed combination, were well-understood, routine or conventional.
Applicant points out that the question of whether additional elements represent well- understood, routine, conventional activity is distinct from patentability over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Obviousness or lack of novelty does not establish that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, or elements to those in the relevant field. See MPEP § 2106.05.
An additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine, or conventional unless the Examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following four options:
1. An explanation based on an express statement in the specification (e.g., citation to a relevant portion of the specification) that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
3. A citation to a publication (e.g., book, manual, review article) that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); or
4. A statement that the Examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s) and the Examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional element(s) represents well- understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use and are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Accordingly, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw this rejection of claims 11, 6-8, 11-15, 19, 22, and 23.
The rejection is not based on well-understood, routine and conventional.
The rejection is modified based on the claim amendments but respectfully maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 23 recites the following steps that invoke 112(f):
means for identifying a range of values of a first variable at which to perform a transaction of a first type on a first quantity of a data object and a range of values for corresponding parameters of a second variable defining a characteristic of the data object and determining a relationship there between;
means for generating data representative of a first equation that defines a relationship between the range of values of the first variable at which to perform the transaction of the first type on the first quantity of the data object and the range of values for corresponding parameters of the second variable defining the characteristic of the data object, wherein the first equation defines a plurality of discrete transaction values;
means for generating, based on the data representative of the first equation a first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message in lieu of a series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages that would otherwise be required to represent the plurality of discrete transaction values, thereby avoiding generation and transmission of the series of discrete-value messages;
means for associating a single total transaction quantity with the plurality of discrete transaction values defined by the first equation;
means for transmitting the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message;
means for devolving the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message into a series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages, each discrete-value message corresponding to one of the plurality of discrete transaction values defined by the first equation;
means for maintaining a link between the series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages and the single total transaction quantity;
means for routing, each of the series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages to a corresponding one of a plurality of discrete-value match engines, each discrete-value match engine configured to process transactions for one of the discrete transaction values;
means for receiving a notification from one of the discrete-value match engines that a transaction has been processed for a portion of the single total transaction quantity; and
in response to the notification, means for automatically generating and transmitting one or more modification messages to the other discrete-value match engines of the plurality of discrete-value match engines to reduce the quantity available for the remaining, linked discrete-value messages.
The above steps invoke 112(f).
Claim 23 recites:
means for receiving the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message over a data communications network, This step is providing a network, therefore this receiving step does not invoke 112(f).
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, 6-8, 11-15, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11-15, 19, 22, and 23 are directed to a method or system, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified system Claim 15 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to method Claim 1 and system Claim 23. Claim 15 recites the limitations of:
A system for improving functioning of a data transaction processing system, the system comprising:
a client computer coupled with the data transaction processing system, the client computer being specifically configured to:
identify a range of values of a first variable at which to perform a transaction of a first type on a first quantity of a data object and a range of values for corresponding parameters of a second variable defining a characteristic of the data object and determining a relationship there between;
generate data representative of a first equation that defines a relationship between the range of values of the first variable at which to perform the transaction of the first type on the first quantity of the data object and the range of values for corresponding parameters of the second variable defining the characteristic of the data object, wherein the first equation defines a plurality of discrete transaction values;
generate, based on the data representative of the first equation, by the client computer, a first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message in lieu of a series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages that would otherwise be required to represent the plurality of discrete transaction values, thereby avoiding generation and transmission of the series of discrete-value messages;
associate a single total transaction quantity with the plurality of discrete transaction values defined by the first equation;
transmit, to the data transaction processing system, the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message;
a linking processor provided by the data transaction processing system, the linking processor being specifically configured to:
receive the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message over a data communications network,
wherein the data representative of the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message is characterized by a smaller data size than data representative of a the series of discrete- value electronic data transaction request messages each including one of the range of values, and wherein the data size of the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message is independent of a quantity of discrete transaction values within the plurality of discrete transaction values defined by the first equation;
devolve the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message into a series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages, each discrete-value message corresponding to one of the plurality of discrete transaction values defined by the first equation;
maintain a link between the series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages and the single total transaction quantity;
route each of the series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages to a corresponding one of a plurality of discrete-value match engines, each discrete-value match engine configured to process transactions for one of the discrete transaction values;
receive a notification from one of the discrete-value match engines that a transaction has been processed for a portion of the single total transaction quantity; and
in response to the notification, automatically generate and transmit, by the linking processor, one or more modification messages to the other discrete-value match engines of the plurality of discrete-value match engines to reduce the quantity available for the remaining, linked discrete-value messages.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, in non-bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice. The various steps are directed to financial transactions and using equations for the transactions. This is a commercial interaction, therefore abstract under certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 23 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
The step of “devolve the first single equation-based electronic transaction data request message into a series of discrete-value electronic data transaction request messages” is solving an equation. Solving an equation is abstract as a mathematical concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: computer, data transaction processing system, client computer, linking processor, data communications network (Claim 1); data transaction processing system, client computer, linking processor, data communications network (Claim 15); means for identifying a range of values, means for generating data representative of a first equation, means for generating a first single equation-based electronic data transaction message, means for associating a single total transaction with a plurality of discrete transaction values, means for receiving the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message, means for devolving the first single equation, means for maintaining a link, means for routing, means for receiving a notification, means for automatically generating and transmitting modification messages (Claim 23). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See para. [00109] of using a general computer system and para. [00125] of using general microprocessors. The devolve step even if it were not itself abstract, is recited and taught at a high level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 15, and 23 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as receive and transmit are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claims 1, 15, and 23 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 6-8, 11-14, 19, and 22 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 15, and 23 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mathematical Concept and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Claim 6 recites client computer which is recited at a high level of generality. The claims themselves are either abstract or further limiting abstract elements. Therefore, the claims 6-8, 11-14, 19, and 22 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 6-8, 11-15, 19, 22, and 23 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11-15, 19, 22, and 23 are 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 1 recites “wherein the data size of the first single equation-based electronic data transaction request message is independent of a quantity of discrete transaction values within the plurality of discrete transaction values defined by the first equation. The specification teaches para. [00301] which recites trader can limit the range of parameters so the trader can limit the size of the evaluation range. However, there is no teaching of data size being independent of a quantity of values. For examination purposes this is interpreted as data size and number of values being not being the same thing. Claims 15 and 23 have a similar problem.
Claims 6-8, 11-14, 19, and 22 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claim.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
No prior art rejection is made at this time based on further search and consideration. The best prior art found is Pub. No. US 2008/0086408 to Johnson et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights