DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 -6 Feb 2026 has been entered.
The following is a non-final office action in response to the request for continuation filed 6 Feb 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims 1, 11, and 20 and cancellation of Claim 2 have been received and are acknowledged.
Claims 1, and 3-20 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 Feb 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: Applicant argues that the previous rejections do not take into account the newly amended claim language. (Applicant’s response, 11-12). Applicant further asserts that the recited claims are “integrated into a practical application.” (Applicant’s response, 12). Applicant further asserts that the instant recited claims claim a “ specific internal computer architecture to execute the newly amended claim language including reconciling “ large conflicting datasets by using a mathematical formula” which is “more efficient” and therefore, “improve the functioning of the computer.” Further, Applicant’s asserts that the recited claims are “novel and non-obvious.” (Applicant’s response, 12-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as rejected below and previously. Applicant’s own previous argument stated that ‘electronic trading” is a method of organizing human activity. Further Applicant now argues that the invention uses a computer/ ( generic computing elements as cited below (Specification, Fig. 2 [20] computer hardware and computer software, CPU, [27] any type of processor… [28] any type of non-transitory media [38-39] processor, memory, communication interface, electronic clock and electronic timer… )) to apply a mathematical formula to a dataset.
As previously stated, the cited steps as recited are directed to at most improving the abstract idea. Further, the
“… Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed.Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)….” (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (2))
As previously stated, using a computer to execute an abstract idea, is not an improvement to technology. At most the recited claim recite an improvement to the abstract idea. A novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant references (Specification, Fig.4B [81]) and various disclosures of Millhuff to argue that Millhuff does not disclose the newly amended claim language and that the prior art of Eurex, Callaway and Finkelstein do not cure the deficiencies of Millhuff. (Applicant’s response, pg. 8-10).
Examiner disagrees as noted previously and in rejection below. As noted in the rejection previously and below, Millhuff discloses using a matching algorithm and even noted that matching orders are only needed when the incoming (i.e. aggressing order) is less than (i.e. smaller) than the quantity of suitable order (i.e. resting orders) which reads on the limitations as recited. ( See at least Millhuff, Figs. 3A -3C, [89] …matching algorithm are only needed when the incoming order quantity is less than the total quantity of suitable orders…reads on smaller total order size…. [180-181] incoming aggressing order) Additionally, Milhuff, as cited below, disclose the application of various ‘allocation algorithms” (Milhuff, [85-87]). As such, Milhuff in view of Eurex teaches the limitations as claimed. Applicant’s arguments and general assertions are not commensurate with the scope of the newly amended claim language. As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of electronic trading. In the instant case, Claims 11-19 are directed to a process. Claims 1 and 3-10 are directed to a system. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
(2a) Prong 1: Electronic trading (i.e.trading) is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
(Currently amended) An ….trading system comprising:
…. configured to:
Set, …, a first time interval, and a second time interval both set to elapse prior to a time that an auction commences;
wherein the … operates in a first state while the first time interval has not elapsed and in a second state after the first time interval has elapsed and the second state while the second time interval has not elapsed ;
when operating in the first state,
…, …, from a plurality of …, orders for the auction, wherein each of the order indicates a price, a side and a size,
stamp each of the orders with a time of receipt,
arrange, …, the orders by the side as bids and offers and by the price and the size in a book having price level tiers; and
at a moment the first time interval elapses, fix each order in the book;
when operating in
determining an aggressing side based on a total size of orders at the top of the price level tiers including the at least one possible order match wherein the side having a smaller total order size is the aggressing side, and
determining each aggressing order at each price level tier of the top of the book price level tiers having a possible order match, in best price level tier to worst price level tier order starting from the top of the book price level tier of the aggressing side,
when at least a portion of an aggressing order at a given price level tier is determined to match pro rata with at least a portion of a resting order on a resting side, filling the resting order by reducing a remaining size of the aggressing order by an amount equal to the pro rata matching size, thereby resulting in a trade between the aggressing side and the resting side of the pro rata matching size,until an aggressing order at the given price level tier can no longer be determined to match pro rata with a given resting order on the resting side, and
wherein a pro rata matching size for a first resting order on the resting side is determined based on a size of the first resting order divided by a total order size of the resting side multiplied by a total order size of the aggressing side at the top of the price level tier; and
when
11. (Currently amended) A method of … trading for an …trading system, the …trading system including a … having …, the method comprising:
setting, … a first time interval;
when operating in the first state, …, … from a plurality of …, orders for the auction, wherein each of the orders indicates a price, a side and a size;
stamping
arranging, … the orders by the side as bids and offers and by the price and the size in a book having price level tiers; and
at a moment the first time interval elapses, fix each order in the book;
when operating inthe second state,
determining at least one possible order match at top of the book price level tiers by:
determining an aggressing side based on a total size of orders at the top of the price level tiers including the at least one possible order match wherein the side having a smaller total order size is the aggressing side, and
determining each aggressing order at each price level tier of the top of the book price level tiers having a possible order match, in best price level tier to worst price level tier order starting from the top of the price level tier of the aggressing side,
when at least portion of an aggressing order at a given price level tier is determined to match pro rata with at least a portion of a resting order on a resting side, filling the resting order by reducing a remaining size of the aggressing order by an amount equal to the pro rata matching size, thereby resulting in a trade between the aggressing side and the resting side of the pro rata matching size, until an aggressing order at the given price level tier can no longer be determined to match pro rata with a given resting order on the resting side, and
wherein a pro rata matching size for a first resting order on the resting side is determined based on a size of the first resting order divided by a total order size of the resting side multiplied by a total order size of the aggressing side at the top of the price level tier; and
when
20. (Currently amended) A …configured to … …which, when executed … perform a method of …trading comprising:
setting, …, a first time interval and a second time interval both set to elapse prior to a time that an auction commences;,
wherein the … operates
when operating in the first
…, …, from a plurality of …orders for the auction, wherein each of the orders indicates a price, a side and a size;
stamping
arranging, …, the orders by the side as bids and offers and by the price and the size in a book having price level tiers; and
at a moment interval elapses, fix each order in the book;
when operating in the second state,
determining at least one possible order match_
determining an aggressing side based on a total size of orders at the top of the price level tiers including the at least one possible order match wherein the side having a smaller total order size is the aggressing side, and
determining each aggressing order at each price level tier of the top of the book price level tiers having a possible order match, in best price level tier to worst price level tier order starting from the top of the price level tier of the aggressing side,
when at least a portion of an aggressing order at a given price level tier is determined to match pro rata with at least a portion of a resting order on a resting side, filling the resting order by reducing a remaining size of the aggressing order by an amount equal to the pro rata matching size, thereby resulting in a trade between the aggressing side and the resting side of the pro rata matching size, until an aggressing order at the given price level tier can no longer be determined to match pro rata with a given resting order on the resting side, and
wherein a pro rata matching size for a first resting order on the resting side is determined based on a size of the first resting order divided by a total order size of the resting side multiplied by a total order size of the aggressing side at the top of the book price level tier; and
when the auction commences, atomic matching each possible order match determined in the
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)].
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of setting..…operating… stamping… arranging… determining/fix… determining…determining… determining/determined… … matching … do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. receiving… storing…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (g) and (f))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 11-19 are directed to a process. Claims 1 and 23-10 are directed to a system. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (system, timer, memory, processor, network, non-transitory storage medium, instructions ) merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions (i.e. storing/receiving). (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f)) (Specification, Fig. 2 [20] computer hardware and computer software, CPU, [27] any type of processor… [28] any type of non-transitory media [38-39] processor, memory, communication interface, electronic clock and electronic timer… )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (3-10 and 12-19 ) introduces the additional elements of further defining elements such as total sizes (Claims 12 ), pro rata matching size (Claim 10) wherein clauses further adjusting (Claims 3, 13), further defining the auction ( Claims 4, 14 ), transmitting… (Claim 5, 6, 15, 16 ), displaying…, (Claims 7, 17…) notifying…(Claims 8, 18) orders..(Claims 9, 19). These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount to mere use of a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f)) (Specification, Fig. 2 [20] computer hardware and computer software, CPU, [27] any type of processor… [28] any type of non-transitory media [38-39] processor, memory, communication interface, electronic clock and electronic timer… )
Therefore, claims 1, 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0192616 A1, Millhuff et al. hereinafter referred to as Millhuff further in view of non-patent literature, Eurex, Quick Reference Guide: Eurex Market Model, January 2007, Published by Eurex Frankfurt AG hereinafter referred to Eurex.
Claims 1, 11, and 20
Millhuff discloses a method, system and non-transitory storage medium of electronic trading for an electronic trading system, the electronic trading system including a server having a memory, a timer and at least one processor, comprising:
setting, by the timer, a first time interval; ; (See at least Millhuff, [212] pre-open state, timer is activated…market may be placed back into pre-open….process may repeat a number of times… … wherein the first pre-open state is reads on first time interval and the second pre-open state reads on second time interval..(i.e. when the market is placed back into pre-open) )
when operating in the first state, receiving, over a communication network, from a plurality of computing devices, orders for the auction, wherein each of the orders indicates a price, a side and a size; (See at least Millhuff, [49] order.. which specifies a desire to buy or sell a quantity of particular instrument at a particular price)
…
arranging, in the memory, the orders by the side as bids and offers and by the price and the size in a book having price tier levels; (See at least Millhuff, [1] order book… prices…buy or sell… [45] order book… maintained each product…[78] stored in an order book database… [128] trade database 108…store information identifying trades and descriptions of trades… the time that a trade took place and the contract price….[129] order book module… current bid and offer prices…[171-190] Object Book Data Structure )
…
when operating in the second state, determining at least one possible order match at top of the book price level tiers by:; (See at least Millhuff, Figs. 3A -3C, Object A … [49] matching… order… a desire to buy or sell a quantity… at least partially satisfy the desired quantity of one or both of the order and/or the counter order)
determining an aggressing side based on a total size of orders at the top of the price level tiers including the at least one possible order match wherein the side having a smaller total order size is the aggressing side and, ( See at least Millhuff, Figs. 3A -3C, [89] …matching algorithm are only needed when the incoming order quantity is less than the total quantity of suitable orders…reads on smaller total order size…. [180-181] incoming aggressing order)
determining each aggressing order at each price level tier of the top of the book price level tiers having a possible order match, in best price level tier to worst price level tier order starting from the top of the price level tier of the aggressing side, ( See at least Millhuff, Figs. 3A -3C, [180-181] incoming aggressing order)
when at least portion of an aggressing order at a given price level tier is determined to match pro rata with at least a portion of a resting order on a resting side, until an aggressing order at the given price level tier can no longer be determined to match pro rata with a given resting order on the resting side filling the resting order by reducing a remaining size of the aggressing order by an amount equal to the pro rata matching size, thereby resulting in a trade between the aggressing side and the resting side of the pro rata matching size, and (See at least Millhuff, [37] exchange may further define the matching algorithm; [45] Outstanding… orders …. Order books… “resting”.. their availability for trading …advertised….electronic notifications…market data feeds…[85-87] discussing various “allocation algorithms” …pro-rata matching… allocated… proportionally…Pro-rata algorithms… allocation … in accordance… at least a minimum allocation quantity)
wherein a pro rata matching size for a first resting order on the resting side is determined based on a size of the first resting order divided by a total order size of the resting side multiplied by a total order size of the aggressing side at the top of the price level tier; and (See at least Millhuff, [37] exchange may further define the matching algorithm; [45] Outstanding… orders …. Order books… “resting”.. their availability for trading …advertised….electronic notifications…market data feeds…[87] pro-rata matching… allocated… proportionally…Pro-rata algorithms… allocation … in accordance… at least a minimum allocation quantity)
when the auction commences, atomic matching each possible order match determined in the second state. (See at least Millhuff, [37] exchange may further define the matching algorithm)
Millhuff further discloses4
at a moment the first time interval elapses, fix each order in the book (See at least Millhuff,[212-213] transitioned out of pre-open state; [219] dynamic circuit breaker..resets and begins monitoring .. until … tripped again…)
Millhuff does not directly disclose the following, however, Eurex teaches:
stamping each of the orders with a time of receipt; (See Eurex, pg. 8, timestamp)
Eurex further teaches various states and switching between them including: pre-opening -freeze – netting..(See Eurex, pg. 8, Opening: Pre-opening – Freeze – Netting)
Eurex also teaches pro-rata matching.((See Eurex, pg. 55, pro-rata matching)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Millhuff discloses a method and system of financial instrument trading. Eurex is merely another financial instrument trading system. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. A financial instrument trading system including known elements and variations for processes such as time-stamping orders and pro-rata matching, ). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Millhuff / Eurex.
Claim 12
Millhuff and Eurex disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Millhuff further discloses:
when total sizes respectively of bid and offer sides of orders determined for possible match are the same, the side of the orders received first, is the aggressing side and when the total sizes respectively of bid and offer sides of orders determined match are different, the side having a smaller total order size is the aggressing side. (See at least Millhuff, [1, 45] outstanding (unmatched…partially satisfied/filled; [47] partially satisfied [49] matching… order… a desire to buy or sell a quantity… at least partially satisfy the desired quantity of one or both of the order and/or the counter order)
The Examiner notes that these limitations are not functionally involved in the steps of the recited method. Therefore these limitations are deemed to be nonfunctional descriptive material. The steps of the method would be performed the same regardless of how the ‘sides’ are labelled. The differences between the content of the Applicant’s invention and the prior art are merely subjective. Thus this nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) also see MPEP 2106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide any information in prior art because the label does not functionally relate to the elements of the steps of the claimed method and because the subjective interpretation of information does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 13
Millhuff and Eurex disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Millhuff further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to adjust remaining quantities of the given resting order, based on the pro rata matching size for the first resting order. (See at least Millhuff, [37] exchange may further define the matching algorithm; [45] Outstanding… orders …. Order books… “resting”.. their availability for trading …advertised….electronic notifications…market data feeds…[87] pro-rata matching… allocated… proportionally…Pro-rata algorithms… allocation … in accordance… at least a minimum allocation quantity)
Claims 4 and 14
Millhuff and Eurex disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Millhuff further discloses:
wherein following the atomic matching the at least one processor is configured to, match a remaining unmatched or partially filled order in the book in the auction. (See at least Millhuff, [37] exchange may further define the matching algorithm; [45] Outstanding… orders …. Order books… “resting”.. their availability for trading …advertised….electronic notifications…market data feeds…[87] pro-rata matching… allocated… proportionally…Pro-rata algorithms… allocation … in accordance… at least a minimum allocation quantity)
Claims 6 and 16
Millhuff and Eurex disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Millhuff further discloses:
wherein after the atomic match the at least one processor is configured to, transmit, over the communication network, order size information indicating a state of fill of a given order to one of the plurality of computing devices from which the given order was received. (See at least Millhuff, Figs. 3A -3C,Fig 6, [37] exchange may further define the matching algorithm; [49] matching… order… a desire to buy or sell a quantity… at least partially satisfy the desired quantity of one or both of the order and/or the counter order)
Claims 7 and 17
Millhuff and Eurex discloses the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Millhuff further discloses the controlling of the customization of the software.
wherein the at least one processor is configured, , display, over the communication network, on a first computing device of the plurality of computing devices, only orders submitted by the first computing device. (See at least Millhuff, Fig. 2, display; [84] trading software that receives and displays… trading software… preconfigured … or customized by the user… as such it is obvious to customize a display (i.e. user design choice as taught))
.
The Examiner notes that these limitations (e.g. the content of the message) are not functionally involved in the steps of the recited method. Therefore these limitations are deemed to be nonfunctional descriptive material. The steps of the method would be performed the same regardless of what information was provided in the messages/communications/alerts. The differences between the content of the Applicant’s invention and the prior art are merely subjective. Thus this nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) also see MPEP 2106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide any information in prior art of Millhuff / Eurex because such information does not functionally relate to the elements of the steps of the claimed method and because the subjective interpretation of information does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Claim 10
Millhuff and Eurex discloses the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
Millhuff further discloses:
a given pro rata matching size for the given resting order is ….to a nearest multiple of a minimum trade quantity as a normalized pro rata matching size. (See at least Millhuff, [37] exchange may further define the matching algorithm; [45] Outstanding… orders …. Order books… “resting”.. their availability for trading …advertised….electronic notifications…market data feeds…[87] pro-rata matching… allocated… proportionally…Pro-rata algorithms… allocation … in accordance… at least a minimum allocation quantity)
Millhuff does not directly disclose the following, however, Eurex teaches:
rounded up (See Eurex, pg. 14, rounded)
Claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millhuff further in view of Eurex further in view of US 2015/0161727 Al, Callaway et al. hereinafter referred to Callaway.
Claims 5 and 15
Millhuff and Eurex disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Millhuff further discloses customizing a display. (See at least Millhuff, Fig. 2, display; [84] trading software that receives and displays… trading software… preconfigured … or customized by the user… as such it is obvious to customize a display)
Millhuff and Eurex do not directly disclose the following, however, Calloway teaches:
Wherein, before the atomic match, the at least one processor is configured to control, transmit, over the communication network, an auction open notification to the plurality of computing devices. ( See at least Calloway [13] CME, [16] message directly solely to the trader … further message all market participants reporting a change… [22] message format)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Millhuff discloses a method and system of financial instrument trading. Eurex is merely another financial instrument trading system. Calloway is a system and method of communicating financial messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. A financial instrument trading system including known elements and variations for processes such as time-stamping orders and pro-rata matching and repurchase agreements, and message communication). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Millhuff / Eurex/Calloway.
The Examiner notes that these limitations (e.g. the content of the message) are not functionally involved in the steps of the recited method. Therefore these limitations are deemed to be nonfunctional descriptive material. The steps of the method would be performed the same regardless of what information was provided in the messages/communications/alerts. The differences between the content of the Applicant’s invention and the prior art are merely subjective. Thus this nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) also see MPEP 2106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide any information in prior art of Millhuff / Eurex/Calloway because such information does not functionally relate to the elements of the steps of the claimed method and because the subjective interpretation of information does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 18
Millhuff discloses the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Millhuff further discloses the controlling of various operation states. ( See at least Millhuff, [201] …Each state may be defined by the activities allowed during that state… pre-open, for example… not order matching… and mass quote messages are allowed…).
Eurex further teaches a freeze state. (See at least Eurex, pg. 6, Freeze )
Millhuff and Eurex do not directly disclose the following, however, Calloway teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to control, notifying of the plurality of computing devices that a change to an order or new order is no longer accepted. (See at least Calloway [13] CME, [16] message directly solely to the trader … further message all market participants reporting a change… [22] message format)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Millhuff discloses a method and system of financial instrument trading. Eurex is merely another financial instrument trading system. Calloway is a system and method of communicating financial messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. A financial instrument trading system including known elements and variations for processes such as time-stamping orders and pro-rata matching and repurchase agreements, and message communication). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Millhuff / Eurex/Calloway.
The Examiner notes that these limitations (e.g. the content of the message) are not functionally involved in the steps of the recited method. Therefore these limitations are deemed to be nonfunctional descriptive material. The steps of the method would be performed the same regardless of what information was provided in the messages/communications/alerts. The differences between the content of the Applicant’s invention and the prior art are merely subjective. Thus this nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) also see MPEP 2106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide any information in prior art of Millhuff / Eurex/Calloway because such information does not functionally relate to the elements of the steps of the claimed method and because the subjective interpretation of information does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millhuff further in view of Eurex further in view of US 2001/0037284 Al, Finkelstein et al. hereinafter referred to as Finkelstein.
Claims 9 and 19
Millhuff and Eurex discloses the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 11.
Millhuff and Eurex do not directly disclose the following, however, Finkelstein teaches:
wherein the orders are for a repurchase agreement (“repo”).
(See at least Finkelstein, [2] repurchase agreement (“repo”) ..contract.. )
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Millhuff discloses a method and system of financial instrument trading. Eurex is merely another financial instrument trading system. Finkelstein is also another financial instrument trading system which specifically includes repurchase agreements. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. A financial instrument trading system including known elements and variations for processes such as time-stamping orders and pro-rata matching and repurchase agreements, ). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Millhuff / Eurex/ Finkelstein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights