DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 26, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 2 and 21 have been amended. Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 14, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 21 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112 Rejection, starting pg. 10 of Remarks:
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 21 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 Office Action indicates that the previously added limitations, "... encrypting the order quantity using quantum key encryption..." and "... converts the data records to a standardized format understood by the electronic marketplace." are not adequately disclosed in the specification.
In response, applicant has amended claims 2 and 21 to recite, among other limitations:
"...wherein transmitting the order query to the plurality of participants comprises encrypting the order query using quantum key_ encryption algorithm including at least one of (Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) and (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA), and querying the order by one of a plurality of buy side participants among the plurality of participants to one or more other ones of the plurality of buy side participants,
wherein the marketplace comprises an electronic marketplace, and
wherein each respective order management system comprises an interface module configured to retrieve data records from the order management system and converts convert the data records from a format of the respective order management system into a predetermined format used by the electronic marketplace for order routing
The support for the above amendment can be found in [000229] and [000306].
[000229] In some embodiments, an encryption algorithm such as the well- known PGP, RSA encryption method may be used for communication among participants, computer systems, etc. Advances in quantum computing may make such encryption less secure in the future. Some embodiments, therefore may include use of quantum key encryption algorithms designed to overcome such vulnerability and or other future proof encryption algorithms.
The above teaches encryption such as the well-known PGP, RSA encryption method.
[000306] Preferably, the OIM transmits to the ETM data records in the OMS database relating to a trader's orders when the trader logs on to the ETM. Once the OIM determines that the trader has logged on to the ETM, the OIM retrieves data records about that trader's orders suitable for transmission to the ETM from the OMS database. In one embodiment, the OIM converts the data records retrieved from the OMS database into a standardized format understood by the ETM. In another embodiment, this functionality is part of the ETM.
Independent claims 2 and 21 have been amended to replace "quantum key encryption" with "an encryption algorithm comprising at least one of PGP or RSA." Paragraph [000229] of the specification expressly discloses these well-known encryption algorithms. Because PGP and RSA are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art, no algorithmic disclosure beyond identification is required. See MPEP § 2161.01(I).
The rejection directed to the quantum key encryption is withdrawn based on the claim amendments.
Further, independent claims 2 and 21 have been amended to recite: "from a format of the respective order management system into a predetermined message format used by the electronic marketplace for order routing." Specification [0000306] discloses standardization, and [00109] discloses heterogeneous OMSs (Fidessa-type and proprietary), establishing possession of a predetermined common message format used to bridge heterogeneous OMSs. It is respectfully submitted that the conversion is a routine data-mapping operation well within the level of ordinary skill in trading systems integration. See MPEP § 2161.01(I).
From Applicant’s Claim 2…
“… convert the data records from a format of the respective order management system into a predetermined format used by the electronic marketplace for order routing.”
From Applicant’s specification…
“Preferably, the OIM transmits to the ETM data records in the OMS database relating to a trader's orders when the trader logs on to the ETM. Once the OIM determines that the trader has logged on to the ETM, the OIM retrieves data records about that trader's orders suitable for transmission to the ETM from the OMS database. In one embodiment, the OIM converts the data records retrieved from the OMS database into a standardized format understood by the ETM. In another embodiment, this functionality is part of the ETM.” [0000306]
The above teaches OIM (OMS (order management system) interfacing modules) converts data records into a standardized format understood by the ETM (electronic trading marketplace).
Therefore, data records are converted to a standardized format.
From Applicant’s specification…
“Information about orders for good or service may be tracked by an order management system (OMS). An order management system may include data regarding desired, contemplated, open, completed, considered, ongoing and / or other order. One typical order management system used in securities trading includes the Fidessa Order Management System. Although this order management system and embodiments below focus largely on the trading of securities (e.g., stocks, bonds, futures, options, derivatives, etc.), it should be recognized that other embodiments may be used in connection with the trading of any goods and/ or services whether tangible (e.g., food, oil, collectibles, etc.) or intangible (intellectual property rights, contract performance, etc.).” [000109]
Respectfully, there is no teaching of a “predetermined” format nor teaching that the standardized format is used by the marketplace for order routing purposes.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) to claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-19, and_21.
The rejection is withdrawn directed to quantum computing but modified for use of predetermined format for routing.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 12 of Remarks:
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
It is respectfully submitted that while the claimed invention involves trading, the claims are directed to an order management system to determine if there is a non-firm order which matches a firm order, and if so, the firm order is presented to the party making the non-firm order. If the party does not agree or accept, the order management system maintains the secrecy of the existence of the non-firm order. Therefore, the claimed invention selectively suppresses the transmission of an order query to specific participants based on participant-established filters, and maintains secrecy of order interests within distributed order management systems via interface modules. This solves a technical problem unique to electronic trading networks, and is not a longstanding commercial practice performable by humans as alleged in the Office Action.
Moreover, even if claims 2 and 21 are still deemed arguendo to "cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity," Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2 and 21 are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong II (See USPTO's January 2019 and October 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG")).
In Step 2A, Prong II, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the alleged recited judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application of that exception. The claims are patent-eligible if they, as a whole, integrate the alleged recited judicial exception into a practical application. "Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include . .. [a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field ..." MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). "An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the Specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim." MPEP 2106.05(a).
The claimed invention recites a specific mechanism to solve a network-level problem of maintaining a secrecy of order interests outside each respective participant's order management system. Applicant notes that the Specification [000232] identifies a technical problem (less secure encryption due to advances in quantum computing) and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution ("quantum key encryption algorithms") expressed in the claim. Specification [0232] states:
In some embodiments, an encryption algorithm such as the well-known PGP, RSA encryption method may be used for communication among participants, computer systems, etc. Advances in quantum computing may make such encryption less secure in the future. Some embodiments, therefore may include use of quantum key encryption algorithms designed to overcome such vulnerability and or other future proof encryption algorithms.
The claimed invention specifically requires suppression of order transmission before any information is transmitted to the participants and the marketplace withholds participant identity until execution. It is respectfully submitted that this is not a generic computer applying an abstract idea. It is a specific data-flow architecture analogous to that found patent-eligible in BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering implemented at a specific network location was eligible) and Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (additional data field added to known protocol to enable a specific functional improvement was eligible). Like BASCOM, the present claims prevent pre-trade information leakage - a technical concern specific to networked electronic markets. See also DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims "rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks" are eligible).
BASCOM improved computer Internet filtering. This is different than filtering order information by participant.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that at least under Step 2A, Prong 2, claims 2 and 21 recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B
Under Step 2B, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea. This inquiry is moot because the claims recite a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. However, Applicant does not concede that this issue, and reserves the right to argue it, should become necessary.
Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection to claims 2 and 21.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
they recite “(Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) and (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) where the two open “(“ should probably be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 21 are either directed to a method or system, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 2 and system Claim 21 as the claims that represent the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 2 recites the limitations of:
A method comprising:
storing filters in a central system;
providing a graphical user interface to a terminal associated with a first participant of a marketplace, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive information to generate a firm order for a financial instrument in which the firm order includes an order to execute without additional authorization, wherein the graphical user interface provides an indication of a number of participants that may view a firm order query associated with the information, based on the information;
receiving the information prior to generation of the firm order;
determining the number or participants that may view the firm order query prior to generation of the firm order based on filters established by the participants;
providing the number to participants to the graphical user interface, prior to generation of the firm order;
receiving, by the marketplace, the firm order from the first participant of the marketplace;
selecting one of the filters, based on the firm order;
in response to receiving the firm order by the marketplace, transmitting, by the marketplace, an order query identifying the firm order from the marketplace to a plurality of participants of the marketplace based on application of the selected one of the filters, in which each of the plurality of participants includes a respective order management system, in which each respective order management system is configured to store securely information about a plurality of order interests associated with a respective participant without revealing existence of the plurality of order interests outside of the respective participant, in which each of the plurality of participants includes a module configured to securely interface with the respective order management system of the respective participant, wherein the selected one of the filters prevents transmission of the order query to at least one participant of the marketplace, wherein each one of the plurality of order interests comprises a record, the record comprising:
an order identifier; and
a time of last update indicating a time that the order interest was last updated;
in response to receiving a respective order query by the respective participant of the plurality of participants, determining, by a respective module configured to securely interface with the respective order management system of the respective participant, a determination result that a matching order that matches the firm order is stored in the respective order management system associated with the respective participant without revealing existence about respective order interests of the respective participant outside of the respective participant, in which the respective module is configured to maintain secrecy of the existence of order interests of the respective participant except in response to execution of a trade;
in response to determining the determination result, providing, by the respective module of the respective participant, a request for acceptance of the firm order without revealing information about respective trading interests of the respective participant outside of the respective participant;
receiving, by the respective module of the respective participant, a positive reply to the request for acceptance;
in response to receiving the positive reply, transmitting, from the respective participant to the marketplace, an indication that a trade fulfilling at least a part of the firm order and at least a part of the matching order should be executed;
receiving, by the marketplace, a negative reply to the order query by at least one of the plurality of participants, and suppressing transmission of the negative reply to the first participant;
receiving, by the marketplace, the indication that the trade should be executed; and
in response to receiving the indication that the trade should be executed by the marketplace, facilitating, by the marketplace, execution of the trade fulfilling at least part of the firm order and at least part of the matching order without a further communication with the first participant, in which the marketplace is configured to maintain secrecy of the order query until after the trade is executed at which time only notification of execution is provided without notification of an identity of the respective participant;
wherein transmitting the order query to the plurality of participants comprises
encrypting the order query using encryption algorithm including at least one of (Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) and (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA), and
querying the order by one of a plurality of buy side participants among the plurality of participants to one or more other ones of the plurality of buy side participants;
wherein the marketplace comprises an electronic marketplace, and
wherein each respective order management system comprises an interface module configured to retrieve data records from the order management system and convert the data records from a format of the respective order management system into a predetermined format used by the electronic marketplace for order routing.
Claim 21 recites the limitations of:
An apparatus comprising:
a processor;
a database storing filters; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
providing a graphical user interface to a terminal associated with a first participant of a marketplace, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive information to generate a firm order for a financial instrument in which the firm order includes an order to execute without additional authorization, wherein the graphical user interface provides an indication of a number of participants that may view a firm order query associated with the information, based on the information;
receiving the information prior to generation of the firm order;
determining the number of participants that may view the firm order query prior to generation of the firm order based on filters established by the participants;
providing the number of participants to the graphical user interface, prior to generation of the firm order;
receive, by the marketplace, the firm order from the first participant of the marketplace;
select one of the filters, based on the firm order;
in response to receiving the firm order by the marketplace, transmit, by the marketplace, an order query identifying the firm order from the marketplace to a plurality of participants of the marketplace based on application of the selected one of the filters, in which each of the plurality of participants includes a respective order management system, in which each respective order management system is configured to store securely information about a plurality of order interests associated with a respective participant without revealing existence of the plurality of order interests outside of the respective participant, wherein the selected one of the filters prevents transmission of the order query to at least one participant of the marketplace, wherein each one of the plurality of order interests comprises a record, the record comprising:
an order identifier; and
a time of last update indicating a time that the order interest was last updated;
in response to receiving a respective order query by the respective participant of the plurality of participants, determining by a respective module configured to securely interface with the respective order management system of the respective participant, that a matching order that matches the firm order is stored in the respective order management system associated with the respective participant without revealing existence about respective order interests of the respective participant outside of the respective participant, in which the respective module is configured to maintain secrecy of the existence of order interests of the respective participant except in response to execution of a trade;
receiving, by the marketplace, a negative reply to the order query by at least one of the plurality of participants, and suppressing transmission of the negative reply to the first participant;
receive, by the marketplace, from the respective module configured to securely interface with the respective order management system of the respective participant of the plurality of participants, an indication that a trade fulfilling at least a part of the firm order and at least part of the matching order that is stored in the respective order management system should be executed; and
in response to receiving the indication that the trade should be executed by the marketplace, facilitate by the marketplace, execution of the trade fulfilling at least part of the firm order and at least part of the matching order without a further communication with the first participant, in which the marketplace is configured to maintain secrecy of the order query until after the trade is executed at which time only notification of execution is provided without notification of an identity of the respective participant;
wherein transmitting the order query to the plurality of participants comprises
encrypting the order query using encryption algorithm including at least one of (Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) and (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA), and
querying the order by one of a plurality of buy side participants among the plurality of participants to one or more other ones of the plurality of buy side participants;
wherein the marketplace comprises an electronic marketplace, and
wherein each respective order management system comprises an interface module configured to retrieve data records from the order management system and convert the data records from a format of the respective order management system into a predetermined format used by the electronic marketplace for order routing.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, highlighted in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice (e.g., receive information to generate a trade, facilitating execution of a trade) and commercial interaction (e.g., receiving a firm order for a financial instrument, determining number of participants that may view the firm order query, receiving the firm order from the first participant, selecting filter based on the firm order). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: graphical user interface, terminal, central system, order management system, electronic marketplace (Claim 2); a processor, database, memory, graphical user interface, central system, order management system, electronic marketplace (Claim 21). 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. The “module” can be just software or some type of generic hardware (para. [00044]). The module configured to securely interface with a respective order management system of the participant is claimed at a high level of generality without technical details. The “electronic marketplace” is undefined as to what it encompasses, therefore could be many things, including just generic computers. The “order management system” appears to be existing technology (para. [000109] typical OMS of Fidessa and para. [000302]) and could be a server, a database, trader OMS interaction module (TOIM), or something unspecified (“firms have developed their own OMS’s”). The marketplace is configured to maintain secrecy is also at a high level of generality with no technical details claimed (see paras. [000135] and [000203] of the disclosure where information is kept in confidence at a central system). Further, the concept of secret trading is still trading, which is an abstract concept (e.g., financial interaction between parties). Storing filters is insignificant extra solution activity. Filtering, even if it were not itself abstract, may or may not provide a benefit and any benefit would be considered an effect or result that may or may not happen. Further, filtering it not improving a technology but used for filtering orders. Selecting a filter is based on the orders themselves (e.g., large cap securities have one type of filter and small cap another, see para. [000181]), therefore, further limiting the abstract concept of financial transactions. Converts data records to a standardized format understood by the electronic marketplace is recited at a high level of generality (also, para. [000306] where standardized is taught at a high level of generality).
The encrypting the order query is using one of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) or Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA), which is using existing technology at a high level of generality. See also para. [000229] that teaches using such algorithms. 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 2 and 21 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. See also Pub. No. US 2011/0047068, para. [0071], and Pub. No. US 2012/0016788, para. [0071], where converting data into a standardized format for trading purposes has been performed in the past. Also, para. [000229] of the instant disclosure where PGP and RSA encryption are 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. Steps such as receiving, transmitting, and storing 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 2 and 21 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 15-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their independent Claim 2 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity 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 17 has “encrypted message” yet that has been shown not to be enough (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A where specific encryption method was required). Therefore, the claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 15-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 21 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 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 21 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 2 recites “… convert the data records from a format of the respective order management system into a predetermined format used by the electronic marketplace for order routing.”
The specification teaches “…In one embodiment, the OIM converts the data records retrieved from the OMS database into a standardized format understood by the ETM. In another embodiment, this functionality is part of the ETM.” [0000306]
There is no teaching of convert data records from a format of order management into a predetermined format for order routing. The teaching converts data records retrieved from OMS databased into a standardized format understood by the ETM. Claim 21 has a similar problem.
Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 15-19 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claims.
Prior Art Search
A prior art search was updated but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
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