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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 2 is amended.
Claims 2-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection-These rejections have been withdrawn based upon the newly amended claim language wherein claim 2 recites, “prioritizing…according to a prioritizing scheme, by assigning a priority score to each second order based on one or more attributes of its second originator selected from the group consisting of:….and sequencing the plurality of second orders from the highest priority score to the lowest priority score;”
In regards to 35 U.S.C 103(a), it should be noted that references in determining obviousness are not read in isolation, but for what they fairly teach in combination with the prior art as a whole, an thus patent assignee’s reference-by- reference attack on prior art (i.e., Maryknowski as well as Mesaros, Czupek and Agarwal) to demonstrate non-obviousness is not persuasive. Moreover, references are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art. In the previous final office action dated 12/23/2025, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection was based on a combination of references, wherein it was suggested that the reference, Maryknowski discloses prioritizing the orders according to a prioritizing scheme wherein the prioritization scheme gives a higher priority to second orders from second originators (see column 12, lines 31-52).
Now claim 2 has been amended to include that the prioritizing scheme is performed by “assigning a priority score to each second order based on one or more attributes of its second originator…and then sequencing the plurality of second orders from highest priority score to lowest priority score”
Walker et al (US 5,794,207) discloses, “assigning a priority score to each second order based on one or more attributes of its second originator…and then sequencing the plurality of second orders from highest priority score to lowest priority score” [see Walker column 16, lines 12-37, esp. lines 31-37]
Thus the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained in view of Walker.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2-18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Waelbroek et al (US 7,908,206) in view of Marynowski (US 9,846,910), Walker et al (US 5,794,207), Mesaro (US 8,732,018), Czupek et al (US 2010/0088213) and Agarwal et al (US 2010/0057604).
Regarding claim 2, Waelbroeck recites, a method comprising: receiving, via a communication network, (item# 30) a first message indicating a first order, that defines a first side of a proposed trade (order/message) for a first instrument. (column 3, lines 27-30), (see column 8, lines 38-40), (column 12, lines 18-31), (FIG. 17)(Item# 1710) receiving, via the communication network, from one or more second originators a plurality of separate trading systems, second messages indicating second orders (contra-orders) in which each of the plurality of second orders defines, at least in part, a second side of the proposed trade for the financial instrument (Fig. (item# 1440, 1460)(column 10, lines 43-49, column 39, lines 51-65), (Fig. 17)(Item# 1730) based, at least in part, on the prioritizing, selecting (order routed) one or more of the plurality of second orders to match the first order (FIG. )(item# 1460) executing the proposed trade for the financial instrument between the first order and the selected one or more of the plurality of second orders. (column 22, lines 31-41).
Waelbroek fails to disclose, " prioritizing…assigning a priority score to each second order based on one or more attributes of its second originator selected from the group consisting of: an older second originator, a longer-term second originator, a more active second originator, a larger second order, a smaller second order, a second order closer in size to the first order, a loyalty of a second originator, firm second orders, second orders found by querying a second originator, a newest second order, a highest ranked second originator, a second originator willing to pay a fee, or a premium second originator, and then sequencing the plurality of second orders from the highest priority score to the lowest priority score;".
Marynowski suggests prioritization of orders based upon various criteria (see Maryknowski, column 12, lines 31-52).
Walker et al (US 5,794,207) discloses, “assigning a priority score to each second order based on one or more attributes of its second originator…and then sequencing the plurality of second orders from highest priority score to lowest priority score” [see Walker column 16, lines 12-37, esp. lines 31-37]
Mesaros (US 8.732,018) discloses ranking buyers in a buying group based upon most active purchasing histories (Fig. 5)(item# 500)(item#510)(see column 9, lines 12-21)
Czupeket al (US 2010/0088213) discloses algorithm based upon a preferred trader [0124], where a preferred allocation algorithm identifies orders submitted by traders who are assigned or otherwise earn priority status [0128]
Agarwal et al S2010/0057604) teaches that investors may desire to prefer to trade or buy from a specific dealer [0004], [0149]
Marynowski, Walker, Mesaros, Czupek and Agarwal disclose different prioritization schemes and suggest various characteristics/attributes of the originator (buyer, trader, conditions etc.,) that are tailored criteria and/or conditions in the trading process between parties.
Waelbroek discloses the importance of ranking or prioritizing secondary orders or contra-orders based upon certain criteria and/or conditions (see column 39, lines 51-65). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for Waelbroek to have understood and employed alternative prioritization schemes, as suggested in Marynowski, Walker (i.e., ranking and scoring via points), Mesaros, Czupek and Agarwal, and have chosen to integrate such alternative prioritization schemes into Waelbroek.
The motivation would be to further customize order conditions to meet certain order and contra-order requirements of market participants as well as provide particular market participants optimal options based upon customized order rankings (Fig. 8)(item#840)(column 26, lines 42-52), (column 30, lines 53-65), (Fig. 15)(item# 1540)(item#1550)(see Waelbroek, column 39, lines 51-65).
Regarding claim 3, Waelbroek discloses each of a plurality of second orders defines one of a buy- side and sell-side of the proposed trade for the financial instrument. (see column 1, lines 38-49; column 27, lines 32-39; column 29, lines 16-26) 39. Regarding claim 4. Waelbroek discloses receiving the first order and a second order as a single message. (column 12, line 1-31; also see MPEP 2111.05) 40. Regarding claim 5, Waelbroek further comprising transmitting, via the communication network, one or more queries to the one or more second originators requesting a second order matching, at least in part, the first order. (column 13, lines 22-62) 41. Regarding claim 6, Waelbroek discloses, wherein each of the one or more queries is transmitted as a message. (column 18, lines 1-17) 42. Regarding claim 7, Waelbroek further comprising receiving an acceptance. (see column 22, lines
Regarding claim 8, Waelbroek further discloses wherein the proposed trade indicates a quantity of a plurality of financial instruments valued at a substantially similar amount. (column 23, lines 14-65)
Regarding claim 9, Waelbroek discloses wherein a second order in a second message includes at least one criteria. (column 23, lines 14-65)
Regarding claim 10, Waelbroek further comprising selecting one or more of the plurality of second orders based, at least in part, on the at least one criteria. (column 23, lines 14-65) 46. Regarding claim 11, 45, Waelbroek discloses wherein the at least one criteria includes at least one of: an industry, an instrument type, or a market capitalization. (column 23, lines 14-65)
Regarding claim 12, Waelbroek discloses wherein the second order in the second message includes a dollar amount, and further comprising determining a quantity for the second order based on the dollar amount. (see column 12, lines 18-31)
Regarding claim 13. Waelbroek discloses wherein the dollar amount (price) is associated with the first order (column 36, lines 6-22)
Regarding claim 14. Waelbroek discloses wherein the dollar amount associated with the first order includes a quantity of shares of the financial instrument. (column 23, lines 14-65)
Regarding claim 15, Waelbroek discloses further comprising determining a time period for cancellation. (column 5, lines 1-14)
Regarding claim 16, Waelbroek discloses performable on a computing device. (Fig. (Item# 10) (column 4, lines 9-24)
Regarding claim 17, Waelbroek discloses further comprising a countdown clock for indicating the time period. (column 6, lines 31-43)
Regarding claim 18, Waelbroek discloses further comprising indicating that the time period has passed. (column 6, lines 31-43).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights