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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received May 22, 2026. Claim(s) 1 has been canceled. Claims 2 and 14 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 2-21 are pending and addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Priority
Application No. 17851850 filed 06/28/2022 is a Continuation of 16100348 , filed 08/10/2018, now abandoned and having 1 RCE-type filing therein 16100348 is a Continuation of 14683727 , filed 04/10/2015, now abandoned 14683727 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 61977943 , filed 04/10/2014
Applicant Name/Assignee: CFPH, LLC
Inventor(s): Toglia, Angelo
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed May6 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations arguing that the amended limitations are not directed toward under step 2A prong 1 an abstract concept “methods of organizing human activity”. The applicant points to the system operations which includes “receives …price…and based on a time priority mechanism…executes the trade at the fixed price or …rejects…rolls the order forward …preventing exposure…price fluctuations between matching events”. Applicant does not explain how receiving price, executing trades or rejecting trade orders is not directed toward the abstract idea of commercial interactions. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks, Applicant argues invention addresses the lack of transparency of…markets with large number of parties are addressed by the provision of more control to limit exposure to price fluctuations. The use of matching events as claimed allow a trader to more safely submit orders and increase liquidity. The storing and reporting of matches may be used by regulators and/or participants to increase confidence pointing to the spec ¶ 0055, showing an audible trail for currency transaction. Applicant further argues the computer based filtering of population of orders while although involving the abstract concept of commercial interactions does not simply recite the judicial exception but instead in light of MPEP 2106.05(a) reflect an improvement to a technical field and thus integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations recite beyond the abstract idea a system comprising generic computer components (memory, interface and processor) where the processor is applied to perform high level steps of receive order packets, stored in first or second order queue, identify order queues, when matching occurs receiving price from third party and storing matching event, execute first trade at fix price, publish to party other than participants in trade, or reject/roll first order without execution. The claimed system merely provides a field of use using generic computer components and operations, where none of the operations are directed toward the system or its components for improvement or to address a problem within the system or its functionality itself. Applicant’s argument points out the problem rooted in the commercial activity and not the system. The machine operations of the processor performing the limitations are broad and functionally described for use in application of performing the transaction process. It is clear based on applicant’s arguments and the claim limitations that the focus of the limitations is not on specific improvement in computer capabilities or to solve a problem rooted within the technology, but instead on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant points to the USPTO Nov. 2016 memo which provides for guidance the McRO decision, where the court determined improvement in computer related technology for consideration include a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Applicant argues the current limitations are not result oriented solutions similar to Intellectual Ventures. This is because the current limitations recite specific structured components -first order queue, second order queue, network interface, third party source with specific operational rules -hold-until-event, identifier -based priority matching, storage of matches, time-based prioritization, price execution, reject-or-roll that when taken together define a particular technical implementation rather than a desired outcome. Therefore, the limitations under step 2A prong 2 is patent eligible. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicant’s argument. The 2014 memo and McRO “rules” where operational processes directed toward technology itself to provide rules to a computer in order to instruct the computer elements to perform a process that previously the technology could not perform. This is not the case of the current application. The claimed “structured components” are applied as tools to perform operations “rules” directed toward the abstract idea and not the technology or its operational capability. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
With respect to the third party source providing and recording prices limitation, applicant’s argument is moot as a new reference has been provided and updated rejection below in response to the amendments.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 2-13:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 2 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. System claim 2 recites a functional process (1) receive data, (2) store data in order queue (3) identify first order queue or second order queue as an opposing side queue for first order (4) identify a first match priority order (5) receiving fixed prices when matching orders (6) cause first trade to be executed based on match order identified (7) cause first trade to be executed based on matched order is filled prior to orders stored (8) publish to a party a price, (9) else reject first order or roll first order into next matching event if order not matched. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a transaction process.
It is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Spot Fixing Auctions,” disclosing, in the Background section, embodiments relating to matching buyer and sellers. The specification discloses a problem in trading for obtaining good prices when prices vary across venues where liability valuation is an issue as trades are kept in the dark and not reported to the public. The specification discloses various embodiments of currency and exchange trading that match trades of interest related to one or more financial instruments (spec ¶ 0009). Accordingly, the claimed limitations and specification do not focus on a specific improvement in relevant technology but instead focuses on the abstract idea itself for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Therefore, in light of the specification and claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward the execution of a trade process which is a process directed toward a sales activity. The concepts discussed above are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a memory, a network interface, at least one processor.
The claimed memory having a first order queue and second order queue stored, the first order queue to store buy/sell orders and the second order queue to store another buy/sell orders.
The claimed processor via a network interface applied to perform the operations “receive…first packet…”, “store in …order queue”, “receiving …price…and storing matching event” when matching occurs and “publish to a party other than participants in the first trade a price of the first trade”
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
The claim operations of the at least one processor via network interface (“receive… order packet”, “store in …order queue”, “receiving …price …and storing …matching event” when matching occurs and publish …a price) and memory (having a first order queue and second order queue stored, the first order queue to store buy/sell orders and the second order queue to store another buy/sell orders) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation. The “receive”, “receiving …price” and “publish” limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, whereas the memory to store [data] is storing information in memory and/or electronic record keeping which have been determined to be insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “ processor” applied to perform the operations “identify first order queue or second order queue as opposing side queue”, perform a “matching event” where a first matched order is identified within opposing side queue”, “cause trade to be executed…”-“else reject first order or roll first order into next matching event” (if during matching event, first order [inferred is not matched]), which individually are directed toward a transaction process.
The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the system at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details.
The functions of the “processor” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the sales activity using generic system processor. The operations of the processor only recite outcomes “identify first or second order queue”, “identify match priority order” and “cause trade to be executed” without any details as to how the outcomes as a technical process are performed. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1 and 2-4 are an insignificant extra solution of data receiving, storing and analyzing the data of limitations 1 to match identified trade orders–a business practice. The combination of limitations 1-4 and 5-7 are directed toward executing the trade and outputting the result based on the identified matched order of limitations 1-4, or limitations 1-4 and 8 if a match is not identified and therefore, is directed toward a sales activity and business practice. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology. The claim limitations recite beyond the abstract idea a system comprising generic computer components (memory, interface and processor) where the processor is applied to perform high level steps of receive order packets, stored in first or second order queue, identify order queues, when matching occurs receiving price from third party and storing matching event, execute first trade at fix price, publish to party other than participants in trade, or reject/roll first order without execution. The claimed system merely provides a field of use using generic computer components and operations, where none of the operations are directed toward the system or its components for improvement or to address a problem within the system or its functionality itself.
Therefore, the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter merely applies technology to perform a sales activity and fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of receiving, identifying order queues and matched order and executing trades is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform the execution of trades. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the recited “receiving”, “identifying” and “executing” operations are performed. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the claim limitations do not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a system comprising a memory having data stored, a processor to perform the functions “receive” data, “store” data, “identify” order queue, “identify” matched orders, “receiving…price”, “storing matching event” and “execute” trades and a “GUI” applied to “present” results. The system is recited with conventional generic components employed in a customary manner and do not purport to provide any particular technical process or attempt to improve any underlying technology. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the system processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a system processor to receive data, identify order data, identify order matches and execute trade orders ----are some of the most basic functions of a computer. When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “receive” order data, “identify” order queue, “identify” match orders and “execute” trade orders ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence that the technology being applied is generic the examiner provides:
[0021] In a complex market, a single participant such as that of the illustrated first participant
may be made up of a plurality of sub-participants. For example, an algorithmic trading
participant may engage in trading through two or more algorithms. As another example, a bank
or hedge fund may engage in trading through two or more trade desks. As yet another example, a
broker may engage in trading for more than one client and/or a brokerage agency may engage in
trading for more than one client through more than one broker. FIG. I illustrates such a situation
with actors 103A and 103B. These may be any form of entity responsible for submitting desires
to trade to a matching platform (e.g., traders, brokers, computers, algos, APis, interfaces, etc.).
[0022] First participant 103 may include one or more computing devices. Such devices may
enable traders to submit orders, may run algorithms, may provide interfaces, and/or may
otherwise facilitate the submission of one or more or trading desires to a trading platform IO 1. A
general purpose computer may be operated to provide such functionality with proper
programming. A first participant may submit a trading desire through a communication network
to a trading platform indicating a desire to buy or sell some amount of an identified item. Such a
transmission may include use of a trading platform API to submit an order and/or any other type
of transmission in any agreed upon format that the trading platform recognizes (e.g., a
transmission encrypted using a public key of the trading platform and/or encoded according to a
packet encoding scheme made available by the trading platform).
[0065] FIG. 3 illustrates an example interface that may be used in some embodiment to facilitate
trading through a trading platform employing such matching event functionality. This is an illustration of an interface that may enable a trader to submit an order for a 16:00GMT WMR Fix Auction.
[0066] A matching session in which the rate is set to "TBD" (To Be Determined) is shown here.
A trader may use this GUI to enter a desired quantity of a trade and submit that order to the
matching platform (e.g., entering an amount in a cell such as the buy at fix cell in the EUE/USD
column to indicate the amount of contracts wanted to buy at the fix price, pressing a submit button or the enter key. In response to a fix price being published a GUI may change from TBD to show a determined price.,,,
[0067] It should be recognized that this interface is given as an example only and that any
desired interface and/or method of interacting with a matching platform may be used in a variety
of embodiments.
[0120] It will be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the various processes described herein may be implemented by, e.g., appropriately programmed general purpose computers, special purpose computers and computing devices. Typically a processor (e.g., one or more microprocessors, one or more microcontrollers, one or more digital signal processors) will receive instructions (e.g., from a memory or like device), and execute those instructions, thereby performing one or more processes defined by those instructions. Instructions may be embodied in, e.g., one or more computer programs, one or more scripts.
[0121] A "processor" means one or more microprocessors, central processing units (CPUs), computing devices, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, or like devices or any combination thereof, regardless of the architecture (e.g., chip-level multiprocessing/ multi-core, RISC, CISC, Microprocessor without Interlocked Pipeline Stages, pipelining configuration, simultaneous multithreading).
[0122] Thus a description of a process is likewise a description of an apparatus for performing the process. The apparatus that performs the process can include, e.g., a processor and those input devices and output devices that are appropriate to perform the process.
With respect to the publish limitation the specification describes what data is published lacking technical disclosure.
[0027] A price source may publish a price in response to determining the price. For example, in response to determining the 2PM WMR fix, WM/Reuters may publish a price (i.e. a set of currency pair exchange rates). For example, an electronic transmission indicating the price may be made at, for example, 2:02pm each weekday after the price is determined for the 2PM WMR fix. Such a publication may take any desired form such as a publication in a public location that is monitored by the trading platform, a direct and/or private transmission to the trading platform
such as in a csv file format or other encoding, an access may be allowed for the trading platform to obtain that information such as addition to an FTP site, and so on.
[0056] As indicated, some embodiments may include receiving a price for the matching event. For example the price may be received from a pricing source in the form of an electronic document, may be published in a trusted and known location such as a website, and so on. The WMR fix price, for example may be transmitted from WM/Reuters to the matching platform in the form of a data file in an agreed upon format.
[0066] A matching session in which the rate is set to "TBD" (To Be Determined) is shown here. A trader may use this GUI to enter a desired quantity of a trade and submit that order to the matching platform (e.g., entering an amount in a cell such as the buy at fix cell in the EUE/USD column to indicate the amount of contracts wanted to buy at the fix price, pressing a submit button or the enter key). In response to a fix price being published a GUI may change from TBD to show a determined price. A trader may track pending and/or submitted orders through such an interface in some embodiments.
The specification does not distinguish the “publish” step from the common meaning in the art that publishing data refers to submitting process of placing an order to buy or sell a security at a specified price
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 3-13 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 2. Dependent 3 is directed toward the opposing side queue to store the representation of each buy/sell order withing memory - transmitted to or received by the system-insignificant extra solution activity of storing and receiving data. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward data stored within memory and identifying the matched priority order based on searching order queue with identifier of participant matching- applying technology to find data for a business process. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward storing buy order data- insignificant extra solution activity and typical business practice. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward identifying matched priority orders within opposing side queue based on buy/sell orders associated with identifier- a sales activity. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward sending a message based on identifying matched order within opposing side queue- insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward first participant associated with participant type and sending reporting message associated with second participant based on participant type-insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward participant type associated with second participant different from participant type of first participant-sales activity. Dependent claims 10 and 11 are directed toward sending reporting message to second participant- insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward first and second order queue are implemented as ordered queues to store buy/sell order – applying technology to perform a business process. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward a transaction process of receiving data, identifying order queue as opposing side queue, search opposing side queue to identify buy/sell match associated with identifiers, identify buy/sell order stored that matches based on criteria.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 2. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 3-13 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 14-21:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 14 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 14 recites a method steps (1) storing first and second order queue (2) receiving order packet (3) identifying first order queue or second order queue as an opposing side queue for first order (4) receiving fixed prices when matching orders (5) cause first trade to be executed based on match order identified (6) publishing to a party a price, (7) else reject first order or roll first order into next matching event if order not matched. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a transaction process.
It is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Spot Fixing Auctions,” disclosing, in the Background section, embodiments relating to matching buyer and sellers. The specification discloses a problem in trading for obtaining good prices when prices vary across venues where liability valuation is an issue as trades are kept in the dark and not reported to the public. The specification discloses various embodiments of currency and exchange trading that match trades of interest related to one or more financial instruments (spec ¶ 0009). Accordingly, the claimed limitations and specification do not focus on a specific improvement in relevant technology but instead focuses on the abstract idea itself for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Therefore, in light of the specification and claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward the execution of a trade process which is a process directed toward a sales activity. The concepts discussed above are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a memory of a computer, a network interface and at least one processor
The claimed memory applied for “storing” the first and second order queue.
The claimed network interface applied for “receiving” a fix price
The claimed processor applied to perform the steps “receiving first order packet”
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)) the courts have recognized the following computer functions are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) where technology is merely applied to perform the abstract idea or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
The claim operations of the at least one processor via network interface (“receiving” a fix price and “receiving first order packet”) and memory (“storing” the first and second order queue;) are recited at a high level of generality without details of technical implementation.
The additional steps “matched priority order is identified and “publishing” a price “receive” and “publishing”…a price…, are not tied to any technology to implement the steps. which have been determined to be insignificant extra solution activity.
The additional element “ processor” applied to perform the operations “identify first order queue or second order queue as opposing side queue”, perform a “matching event” where a first matched order is identified within opposing side queue”, which are processes directed toward a transaction and not the technology itself.
The additional steps “when matching occurs …storing matching event and during first matching event a matched priority order is identified …”, “causing trade to be executed…”-“else reject first order or roll first order into next matching event” (if during matching event, first order [inferred is not matched]), and conditional limitation “else …rejecting …order or rolling…order” which individually are directed toward a transaction process and are also not tied to any technology for implementation.
The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the system at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details.
The functions of the “processor” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the sales activity using generic computer processor. The claimed steps fail to provide any details as to how the outcomes as a technical process are performed. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1 and 2-3 are an insignificant extra solution of data storing orders, receiving order packets and identifying orders as opposing orders for a transaction process. The combination of limitations 1-3 and 4-6 is directed toward matching orders and publishing the results whereas the combination of limitations 1-3 and 4 and 7 is directed toward rejecting or rolling orders in response to a matching of orders process failing based on limitations 1-3. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology. The claim limitations recite beyond the abstract idea a system comprising generic computer components (memory, interface and processor) where the processor is applied to perform high level steps of receive order packets, stored in first or second order queue, identify order queues, when matching occurs receiving price, execute first trade at fix price, publish to party other than participants in trade, or reject/roll first order without execution. The claimed system merely provides a field of use using generic computer components and operations, where none of the operations are directed toward the system or its components for improvement or to address a problem within the system or its functionality itself.
Therefore, the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter merely applies technology to perform a sales activity and fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of receiving, identifying order queues and matched order and executing trades is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to perform the execution of trades. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the recited “receiving”, “identifying” and “executing” operations are performed. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the claim limitations do not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include a memory of a computer storing order data, one processor performing the operations of receiving data and identifying first/second order queue, and a network interface applied for receiving price data for matching orders–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every memory is capable of storing data and nearly every processor for implementing a method is capable of performing the basic computer functions -of “receiving” and “identifying” and network interface is capable of receiving data - As a result, none of the hardware recited by the method claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “receive” order data, “identify” order queue, “identify” match orders and “execute” trade orders ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
[0021] In a complex market, a single participant such as that of the illustrated first participant
may be made up of a plurality of sub-participants. For example, an algorithmic trading
participant may engage in trading through two or more algorithms. As another example, a bank
or hedge fund may engage in trading through two or more trade desks. As yet another example, a
broker may engage in trading for more than one client and/or a brokerage agency may engage in
trading for more than one client through more than one broker. FIG. I illustrates such a situation
with actors 103A and 103B. These may be any form of entity responsible for submitting desires
to trade to a matching platform (e.g., traders, brokers, computers, algos, APis, interfaces, etc.).
[0022] First participant 103 may include one or more computing devices. Such devices may
enable traders to submit orders, may run algorithms, may provide interfaces, and/or may
otherwise facilitate the submission of one or more or trading desires to a trading platform IO 1. A
general purpose computer may be operated to provide such functionality with proper
programming. A first participant may submit a trading desire through a communication network
to a trading platform indicating a desire to buy or sell some amount of an identified item. Such a
transmission may include use of a trading platform API to submit an order and/or any other type
of transmission in any agreed upon format that the trading platform recognizes (e.g., a
transmission encrypted using a public key of the trading platform and/or encoded according to a
packet encoding scheme made available by the trading platform).
[0065] FIG. 3 illustrates an example interface that may be used in some embodiment to facilitate
trading through a trading platform employing such matching event functionality. This is an illustration of an interface that may enable a trader to submit an order for a 16:00GMT WMR Fix Auction.
[0066] A matching session in which the rate is set to "TBD" (To Be Determined) is shown here.
A trader may use this GUI to enter a desired quantity of a trade and submit that order to the
matching platform (e.g., entering an amount in a cell such as the buy at fix cell in the EUE/USD
column to indicate the amount of contracts wanted to buy at the fix price, pressing a submit button or the enter key. In response to a fix price being published a GUI may change from TBD to show a determined price.,,,
[0067] It should be recognized that this interface is given as an example only and that any
desired interface and/or method of interacting with a matching platform may be used in a variety
of embodiments.
[0120] It will be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the various processes described herein may be implemented by, e.g., appropriately programmed general purpose computers, special purpose computers and computing devices. Typically a processor (e.g., one or more microprocessors, one or more microcontrollers, one or more digital signal processors) will receive instructions (e.g., from a memory or like device), and execute those instructions, thereby performing one or more processes defined by those instructions. Instructions may be embodied in, e.g., one or more computer programs, one or more scripts.
[0121] A "processor" means one or more microprocessors, central processing units (CPUs), computing devices, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, or like devices or any combination thereof, regardless of the architecture (e.g., chip-level multiprocessing/ multi-core, RISC, CISC, Microprocessor without Interlocked Pipeline Stages, pipelining configuration, simultaneous multithreading).
[0122] Thus a description of a process is likewise a description of an apparatus for performing the process. The apparatus that performs the process can include, e.g., a processor and those input devices and output devices that are appropriate to perform the process.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 15-21 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 14. Dependent 15 is directed toward storing data within and transmitted to or received by the system-insignificant extra solution activity of storing and receiving order data. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward storing order data and identifying data based on order identifier search- a business practice and insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward identifying matched orders and executing matched orders- a transaction process. Dependent claims 18 and 19 are directed toward sending reporting messages- insignificant extra solution activity. Dependent claim 20 is directed toward storing order data- a business practice. Dependent claim 21 is directed toward a transaction process of receiving data, identifying order queue as opposing side queue, search opposing side queue to identify buy/sell match associated with identifiers, identify buy/sell order stored that matches based on criteria.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 14. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 15-21 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-7, 10-11, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,882,015 B2 by Waelbroeck et al (Waelbroeck) in view of CA 2784262 A1 by Green et al. (Green) and further in view of WO 2004040422 A1 by Sinclair et al (Sinclair)
In reference to Claim 2:
Waelbroeck teaches:
(Currently Amended) A system ((Waelbroeck) in at least FIG. 6A-B; abstract) comprising:
a memory having at least a first order queue and a second order queue stored therein, the first order queue being configured to store a representation of buy orders or sell orders and the second order queue being configured to store a representation of another of the buy orders and sell orders ((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 7 lines 33-67, Col 8-Col 9 lines 1-33, Col 10 lines 42-Col 11 lines 1-11);
a network interface ((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 1 lines 38-44 wherein the prior art teaches known technology; FIG, 6A-C; Col 18 lines 38-67)to:
receive, via the network interface, and prior to a matching event, a first packet having a representation of a first order, the first order including an order quantity and an identifier of a first originating participant for the first order ((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 4 lines 41-60 wherein the prior art teaches orders received and entered into the system in time priority order queue until execution, Col 7 lines 60-Col 8 lines 1-10, lines 57-Col 9 lines 1-25; Col 10 lines 42-67);
store in the first order queue or the second order queue without executing until the matching event occurs ((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 4 lines 41-60 wherein the prior art teaches orders received and entered into the system in time priority order queue until execution);
identify the first order queue or the second order queue as an opposing side queue for the first order ((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 4 lines 18-26, lines 41-Col 5 lines 1-10, Col 11 lines 39-51, Col 12 lines 41-61, claim 1) ;
when the matching event occurs, receiving via the network interface a fix price … ((Waelbroeck) in at least col 8 lines 23-55 wherein the prior art teaches request service assemble recipients based on criterion of target value on new order where trader must submit order matching order was priced at reference price or better, col 12 lines 41-51, Col 13 lines 4-14); and
in response to receiving the fix price from the …party source, if, during the matching event, a first matched priority order is identified within the opposing side queue based on a buy or sell order within the opposing side queue being associated with the identifier of the first originating participant and based on a time priority mechanism ((Waelbroeck) in at least Abstract; Col 4 lines 41-65, Col 12 lines 41-51, Col 17 lines 44-Col 18 lines 1-14), then; and
cause a first trade to be executed at the fix price based on the first order and the first matched priority order such that the first matched priority order is filled prior to one or more orders that were stored in the opposing side queue before the first matched priority order ((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 8 lines 1-10, lines 23-55 wherein the prior art teaches request service assemble recipients based on criterion of target value on new order where trader must submit order matching order was priced at reference price or better, col 12 lines 41-51, Col 13 lines 4-14, Col 17 lines 44-Col 18 lines 1-38; Claim 1), and …
else automatically reject the first order or roll the first order into a next matching event without execution of the first order at the matching event, thereby preventing exposure of the first order to price fluctuations between matching events.((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 4 lines 41-Col 5 lines 1-10 wherein the prior art teaches order entry allowing trade of some of the shares from virtual order elsewhere on the market user waiting for contra to some or all shares represented in virtual order where determine number of shares available, reserves as many shares from virtual order available for execution where shares not reserved for execution is still firm for auto-executable liability so as to not miss the opportunity to work some or all orders elsewhere while waiting for order to materialize, Col 8 lines 38-Col 9 lines 1-38, col 13 lines 15-40, lines 54-Col 14 lines 1-35, Col 15 lines 15-25 wherein the prior art teaches the residue on response order according to rules can be preferably to decline any unfilled quantity or place the unfilled residue of the response order in the auction book where it will be subject to match check events, Col 17 lines 60-Col 18 lines 15-38 wherein the prior art teaches the system checks about orders to determine if some or all shares available is available creating true order placement for highest number of shares executing the highest number of shares possible; Table XIII)
Waelbroeck does not explicitly teach:
from a third-party price source and storing the matching event occurs for a subsequent reporting
publish to a party other than participants in the first trade a price of the first trade while withholding identities of the participants in the first trade.
Green teaches:
when the matching event occurs, receiving via the network interface a fix price from a third-party price source and storing the matching event occurs for subsequent reporting ((Green) in at least page 4 lines 24-26, page 11 lines 6-11, page 12 lines 22-26, page3 13 lines 1-3, page 17 lines 19-27, page 61 lines 10-12, page 62 lines 25-27;
in response to receiving the fix price from the third-party source, if, during the matching event, a first matched priority order is identified within the opposing side queue based on a buy or sell order within the opposing side queue being associated with the identifier of the first originating participant and based on a time priority mechanism ((Green) in at least page 15 lines 29-35, page 16 lines 14-30, page 17 lines 19-18, page 32 lines 16-31, page 110 Rule 403 section (i), para 0112 Rule 406);
Both Waelbroeck and Green teach that participants in trade transaction include third party entities. Green teaches the motivation of receiving and storing prices from third party sources in a trade transaction in order to provide information that assists in managing electronic trading and teaches the motivation of storing transaction information including prices in order to comply with rule 416 with record keeping requirements. Additionally, both Waelbroeck and Green teach applying matching modules which and teaches performing the matching process which includes priority mechanisms. Green teaches the motivation that different types of trades take priority over other types based on trading strategies such as discount curve generation projected through data points in time or bond performance or source of funds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the details of sources of price data that is received of Waelbroeck to include price data received and stored from third party sources of Green since Green teaches the motivation of receiving and storing prices from third party sources in a trade transaction in order to provide information that assists in managing electronic trading and teaches the motivation of storing transaction information including prices in order to comply with rule 416 with record keeping requirements. Additionally, both Waelbroeck and Green teach applying matching modules which and teaches performing the matching process which includes priority mechanisms. Additionally, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the matching and prioritizing of trades of Waelbroeck to include data received from different sources of Green since both Waelbroeck and Green teach applying matching modules which and teaches performing the matching process which includes priority mechanisms
Sinclair teaches:
receiving via the network interface a fix price from a third party price source ((Sinclair) in at least abstract wherein the prior art teaches clients of third party have prices available for trades displayed; page 2 first paragraph wherein the prior art teaches trader presented with quotes entered by counterparties, page 3 summary of invention last paragraph, page 4 second paragraph wherein the prior art teaches receiving price information submitted by counterparties for trade being conducted between third party and counter party where third party for executing second and first deal with first party the same as second deal; page 19 second paragraph wherein the prior art teaches quote entered by maker and sent to prime broker)…
publish to a party other than participants in the first trade a price of the first trade while withholding identities of the participants in the first trade.((Sinclair) in at least Abstract; FIG. 8; page 1 last para-page 2 first para wherein the prior art teaches that it is known for trading system to be anonymous; page 3 last para wherein the prior art teaches displaying to a first party a quote having best price; page 4-page 5 para 1 wherein the prior art teaches displaying best price to first trading party by trading through third party; receiving price submitted by counterparties including best price for which third party has credit to deal; wherein the prior art teaches a system for executing anonymous trades/deals; page 6 para 5; page 8 para 2; page 9 para 1-2; page 15 para 3; page 16 para 2; page 19 para 2)
Both Waelbroeck and Sinclair are directed toward identifying orders in queues that have been submitted for trades where such orders are executed based on order matching criteria and teach applying a user interface to display trading session data. Sinclair teaches the motivation that it is well known for anonymous trading system to perform trades where the participants can submit prices for viewing to parties other than the primary participants such as third party entities. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trading system of Waelbroeck to anonymous trading systems as taught by Sinclair since Sinclair teaches the motivation that it is well known for anonymous trading system to perform trades where the participants can submit prices for viewing to parties other than the primary participants such as third party entities.
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of independent claim 2. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above),
wherein the opposing side queue is configured to store the representation of each buy and sell order within the memory with associated information , the associated information including an identifier of an originating participant, a desired amount of an item for sale or purchase, and/or value representing a time when a buy or sell order was transmitted to, or received by, the system ((Waelbroeck) in at least FIG. 4A-1-4B-2; Col 8 lines 1-10; Table III-V).
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above),
wherein the associated information stored within the memory includes the identifier of an originating participant ((Waelbroeck) in at least FIG. 4A-1-4B-2; Col 7 lines 60-Col 8 lines 1-10, lines 57-Col 9 lines 1-25; Col 10 lines 42-67; Table III-V), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the first matched priority order based on searching the opposing side queue for buy or sell orders with a respective identifier of the originating participant matching the identifier of the first originating participant ((Waelbroeck) in at least col 4 lines 18-26, lines 41-Col 5 lines 1-10, Col 11 lines 39-51, Col 12 lines 41-61, claim 1).
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 4, wherein the associated information for each buy or sell order stored within the opposing side queue (see rejection of claim 4 above) further includes
the desired amount of an item for sale or purchase. ((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 8 lines 37-56, Col 12 lines 41-61, Col 13 lines 4-40, Col 14 lines 47-57)
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of independent claim 2. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify a plurality of matched priority orders including the first matched priority order and a second matched priority order within the opposing side queue based on respective buy or sell orders within the opposing side queue being associated with the identifier of the first originating participant ((Waelbroeck) in at least col 11 lines 39-65, Col 12 lines 62-Col 13 lines 1-14, Table X; Claim 38)and
cause the first trade to be executed based on the first order and the first matched priority order, the first matched priority order having a time of receipt value that is earlier than a time of receipt value of the second matched priority order ((Waelbroeck) in at least Abstract; Col 4 lines 41-47, Col 5 lines 47-67).
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of independent claim 2. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause
sending of a reporting message to a computer associated with a second participant via the network interface based on identifying the first matched priority order within the opposing side queue ((Waelbroeck) in at least FIG. 4B-1-4B2; Col 6 lines 1-25, Col 7 lines 12-29, Table 1, Table IV, Table V).
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause
sending of a reporting message to a computer associated with a second participant via the network interface based on identifying the first matched priority order within the opposing side queue and based on a predetermined threshold order size ((Waelbroeck) in at least FIG. 4C-1-4C-3; Col 4 lines 41-Col 5 lines 1-10, Col 9 lines 1-10, col 9 lines 34-col 10 lines 1-41).
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause
sending of the reporting message to the computer associated with the second participant via the network interface after a predetermined delay following identification of the first matched priority order, the predetermined delay being at least one minute.((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 5 lines 46-67)
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of independent claim 14.
(Currently Amended) The steps of method claim 14 correspond to the functional process of system processor claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of independent claim 14. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), further comprising
storing, via the memory, associated information with each representation of buy or sell orders within the opposing side queue, the associated information including an identifier of an originating participant, a desired amount of an item for sale or purchase, and/or value representing a time when a buy or sell order was transmitted to, or received by, the at least one processor. ((Waelbroeck) in at least FIG. 4A-1-4B-2; Col 8 lines 1-10; Table III-V).
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above),
wherein the associated information for each buy or sell order stored within the opposing side queue further includes the desired amount of an item for sale or purchase, and wherein identifying, by the at least one processor, the first matched priority order is further based on searching the opposing side queue for buy or sell orders with a respective identifier of the originating participant matching the identifier of the first originating participant of the first order and having a respective desired amount of an item stored within the associated information that satisfies at least a portion of the order quantity of the first order. ((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 4 lines 18-26, lines 41-Col 5 lines 1-10, Col 11 lines 39-51, Col 12 lines 41-61, Col 17 lines 44-col 18 lines 1-14, claim 1)
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of independent claim 14. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify a plurality of matched priority orders including the first matched priority order and a second matched priority order within the opposing side queue based on respective buy or sell orders within the opposing side queue being associated with the identifier of the first originating participant, and cause the first trade to be executed based on the first order and the first matched priority order, the first matched priority order having a time of receipt value that is earlier than a time of receipt value of the second matched priority order ((Waelbroeck) in at least Abstract; FIG. 4A-1-4C-2; Col 4 lines 41-47, Col 5 lines 47-67, Col 12 lines 41-51, Col 17 lines 44-col 18 lines 1-14).
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of independent claim 14. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), further comprising causing, by the at least one processor,
sending of a reporting message to a computer associated with a second participant via the communication network based on identifying the first matched priority order within the opposing side queue. ((Waelbroeck) in at least FIG. 4C-1-4C-3; Col 4 lines 41-Col 5 lines 1-10, Col 9 lines 1-10, col 9 lines 34-col 10 lines 1-41)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,882,015 B2 by Waelbroeck et al (Waelbroeck) in view of CA 2784262 C by Green et al. (Green) in view of WO 2004040422 A1 by Sinclair et al (Sinclair) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2008/0040141 A1 by Torrenegra et al. (Torrenegra)
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above),
Waelbroeck does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first originating participant is associated with a participant type, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause sending of the reporting message to the computer associated with the second participant via the network interface based on the participant type associated with the first originating participant.
Torrenegra teaches:
wherein the first originating participant is associated with a participant type, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause sending of the reporting message to the computer associated with the second participant via the network interface based on the participant type associated with the first originating participant. ((Torrenegra) in at least Abstract; para 0019)
Both Waelbroeck and Torenegra are directed toward communicating trade information to buyers and sellers based on conditions related to the execution of orders. Torenegra teaches the motivation of sending messages to seller based a particular type of buyer in order to enable sellers of their classification of a particular type of buyer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conditions for notifying buyer of data related to trade offers of Waelbroeck to include sending sellers buyer information as taught by Torenegra since Torenegra teaches the motivation of sending messages to seller based a particular type of buyer in order to enable sellers of their classification of a particular type of buyer.
Claim(s) 9 of claim 8 above, claim 19 of claim 14 above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,882,015 B2 by Waelbroeck et al (Waelbroeck) in view of CA 2784262 C by Green et al. (Green) in view of WO 2004040422 A1 by Sinclair et al (Sinclair) in view of US Pub No. 2008/0040141 A1 by Torrenegra et al. (Torrenegra), and further in view of US Pub No. 2009/0030830 A1 by Gonen et al. (Gonen)
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green, Sinclair and Torrenegra discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9.
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above),
Waelbroeck does not explicitly teach:
wherein the participant type associated with the second participant is different than the participant type associated with the first originating participant.
Gonen teaches:
wherein the participant type[class] associated with the second participant is different than the participant type [class] associated with the first originating participant.((Gonen) in at least para 0030 wherein the prior art teaches buyer class single buyer and seller class several sellers; para 0033 wherein the prior art teaches set of traders that do not trade and set of traders that do trade; para 0053 wherein the prior art teaches buyer class may be bijection with respect to procurement whereas sets of seller may be same good class)
Both Waelbroeck and Gonen teach matching trade orders. Gonen teaches the motivation of reducing procurement sets of traders based on classes in order to conditions of competitions among remaining traders is fulfilled for trading to occur by recusing both procurement class domains and trader class domains. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for matching trades of Waelbroeck to determine whether class of buyers and sellers are different or the same as taught by Gonen since Gonen teaches the motivation of reducing procurement sets of traders based on classes in order to conditions of competitions among remaining traders is fulfilled for trading to occur by recusing both procurement class domains and trader class domains.
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of independent claim 14. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19.
(Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), further comprising
causing, by the at least one processor, sending of a reporting message to a computer associated with a second participant via the communication network based on identifying the first matched priority order within the opposing side queue and based on a participant type associated with the first originating participant ((Waelbroeck) in at least FIG. 4C-1-4C-3; Col 4 lines 41-Col 5 lines 1-10, Col 9 lines 1-10, Col 9 lines 34-Col 10 lines 1-41, Col 12 lines 41-51, Col 17 lines 44-Col 18 lines 1-14)…,
Waelbroeck does not explicitly teach:
wherein the participant type associated with the second participant is different than the participant type associated with the first participant.
Gonen teaches:
wherein the participant type associated with the second participant is different than the participant type associated with the first participant.((Gonen) in at least para 0030 wherein the prior art teaches buyer class single buyer and seller class several sellers; para 0033 wherein the prior art teaches set of traders that do not trade and set of traders that do trade; para 0053 wherein the prior art teaches buyer class may be bijection with respect to procurement whereas sets of seller may be same good class)
Both Waelbroeck and Gonen teach matching trade orders. Gonen teaches the motivation of reducing procurement sets of traders based on classes in order to conditions of competitions among remaining traders is fulfilled for trading to occur by recusing both procurement class domains and trader class domains. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for matching trades of Waelbroeck to determine whether class of buyers and sellers are different or the same as taught by Gonen since Gonen teaches the motivation of reducing procurement sets of traders based on classes in order to conditions of competitions among remaining traders is fulfilled for trading to occur by recusing both procurement class domains and trader class domains.
Claim(s) 12-13 of claim 7 above, and Claims 20-21 of claim 14 above is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,882,015 B2 by Waelbroeck et al (Waelbroeck), in view of CA 2784262 C by Green et al (Green) in view of WO 2004040422 A1 by Sinclair et al (Sinclair) and further in view of US Patent No. 7,426,490 B1 by Borsand et al. (Borsand)
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of independent claim 2. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12.
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 2 (see rejection 2 above),
wherein the first order queue and the second order queue ((Waelbroeck) in at least FIG. 4A-1-4B-2; Col 8 lines 1-10; Table III-V) are implemented as ordered queues via a data structure in the memory, the ordered queues being configured to store representations of buy or sell orders …. ((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 4 lines 41-50, Col 8 lines 1-10),
Waelbroeck does not explicitly teach:
store representations of buy or sell orders in an order based on time of receipt.
Borsand teaches:
wherein the first order queue and the second order queue are implemented as ordered queues via a data structure in the memory, the ordered queues being configured to store representations of buy or sell orders in an order based on time of receipt ((Borsand) in at least Abstract wherein the prior art teaches queues set based on user defined thresholds; Fig. 2, Fig. 6; Col 1 lines 62-Col 2 lines 1-27, Col 5 lines 6-48, Col 6 lines 27-55, Col 8 lines 24-40, Col 9 lines 10-22)
Both Waelbroeck and Borsand are directed toward receiving incoming orders for order books stored in a database. Borsand teaches the motivation of presenting a plurality (first and second) queue lengths by number of typically time stamped orders so that opportunities for trades can be recognized faster and orders can be arranged with higher priority for matching. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for matching trades of Waelbroeck to apply a first and second queue for incoming time stamped orders for ingestion into order books of Borsand since Borsand teaches the motivation of presenting a plurality (first and second) queue lengths by number of typically time stamped orders so that opportunities for trades can be recognized faster and orders can be arranged with higher priority for matching.
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green, Sinclair and Borsand discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13
(Previously Presented) The system of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive, via the network interface, a second packet having a representation of a second order, the second order including an order quantity and an identifier of a second originating participant for the second order, the second originating participant being different than the first originating participant ((Waelbroeck) in at least Col 7 lines 60-Col 8 lines 1-10, lines 57-Col 9 lines 1-25; Col 10 lines 42-67);
identify the first order queue or the second order queue as an opposing side queue for the second order ((Waelbroeck) in at least col 4 lines 18-26, lines 41-Col 5 lines 1-10, Col 11 lines 39-51, Col 12 lines 41-61, claim 1);
execute a search of the opposing side queue to identify a match within the memory, the match being a buy or sell order associated with the identifier of the second originating participant ((Waelbroeck) in at least col 4 lines 18-26, lines 41-Col 5 lines 1-10, Col 11 lines 39-51, Col 12 lines 41-61, claim 1); and
based on the search not identifying the match within the memory, identify a buy or sell order stored within the opposing side queue that matches the second order based on time-based prioritization mechanism such that buy or sell orders with an oldest time of receipt are matched prior to other buy or sell orders stored within opposing side queue. ((Waelbroeck) in at least Abstract; Col 4 lines 41-47, Col 5 lines 47-67Col 12 lines 41-51, Col 17 lines 44-Col 18 lines 1-14)
Borsand teaches and provides supporting evidence:
…identify a buy or sell order stored within the opposing side queue that matches the second order based on time-based prioritization mechanism such that buy or sell orders with an oldest time of receipt are matched prior to other buy or sell orders stored within opposing side queue ((Borsand) in at least col 1 lines 62-Col 2 lines 1-11)
Both Waelbroeck and Borsand are directed toward receiving incoming orders for order books stored in a database. Borsand teaches the motivation that it is typical (well known) for exchanges to prioritize through time stamping mechanism order to matching and execution commonly referred to as FIFO. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for matching trades of Waelbroeck to apply FIFO matching trades of Borsand since Borsand teaches the motivation that it is typical (well known) for exchanges to prioritize through time stamping mechanism order to matching and execution commonly referred to as FIFO.
In reference to Claim 20:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green and Sinclair discloses the limitations of independent claim 14. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20.
(Previously Presented) The steps of method claim 20 corresponds to functional process of system processor claim 12. Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 12
In reference to Claim 21:
The combination of Waelbroeck, Green, Sinclair and Borsand discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20. Waelbroeck further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 21.
(Previously Presented) The steps of method claim 21 corresponds to functional process of system processor claim 13. Therefore, claim 21 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights