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 Final Office Action in response to communications received November 11, 2025. Claim 8-9 have been canceled. No Claims have been amended. New claim(s) 22 has been added. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 10-22 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 17/886,587 filed 08/12/2022 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein 4. Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63237651 , filed 08/27/2021 17886587 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63233038 , filed 08/13/2021
Applicant Name/Assignee: REFINITIV US ORGANIZATION LLC
Inventor(s): Melton, Heyden
Response to Amendment/Argument
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant does not argue the 101 rejection, instead points to previous arguments in previous rejections. See response in the previous Office Action. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant recites the claim limitations, arguing the prior art references fail to teach “create a single identifying key for each pair of users in each of the bilateral credit lines”, rather the prior art Iyer recite key pairs, that although the prior art identifies the session key as “unique encrypted key” this relies on a public key to encrypt a session key to create an encrypted key” which is part of the public/private key pairs and therefore fails to teach “create a single identifying key for each pair or users…”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The specification para 0025 discloses the creation of a single key that for each pair of counterparties, where the counterparties can be assigned a unique key. The argued reliance of the prior art reference Iyer in a public private key process for encrypting a session to create unique encryption key does not conflict with the claim limitation for the “create a single identifying key for each pair of users in each of the bilateral credit lines”. The prior art teaches that in symmetric keys use that the private key is unique to the other system/party and teaches that the symmetric keys are for each pair of users and that a unique encrypted key is created using the private key paired with the public key which “only the receiving party has” to read the unique encrypted key. The “create” limitation in the claim does not limit how the unique key is created and therefore does not separate from using the creation of the unique key of the prior art using asymmetric keys. The rejection is maintained.
Examiner note: Dependent claim 22 further limits the “create a single identifying key” with the language “wherein the single identifying key for each pair of users is created by: assigning a unique integer identifier to each user; and concatenating the unique integer identifiers of each user in the pair of users”. The “assigning …identifier to each user” and “concatenating the …unique identifiers of each user in the pair of users” does not distinguish from processes where a unique identifier is assigned to the user and the generation of key-pair (asymmetric keys) are applied so that the unique identifiers of each user are “concatenated” (linked) in the pair of users. This is because the use of asymmetric keys is the process for “concatenating the …unique identifiers of each user in the pair of users”
In the remarks applicant argues that the prior art references fail to teach “using the PRNG, pseudo-randomly order the message with the one or more other messages, using the second data as an input to the PRNG's seed”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes the applicant is arguing the limitation individually. (see MPEP 2145 section IV). The prior art combination Djurdj and Golden teach the limitation. Golden teaches identifying first data retained comprising identifiers that are extracted from the request identifying the source of the request Col 8 lines 62-col 9 lines 1-15 and teaches selecting a second data to be used for generation of PRNG seed to randomize the ordering of the message Col 2 lines 49-67, Col 3 lines 1-7; Col 9 lines 16-30, Col 10 lines 9-21 wherein the prior art teaches a choice of second data as input to the seed, Col 12 lines 48-65, col 14 lines 10-15 wherein the prior art teaches “the seed value may a value extracted from the service request that is indicative of source of the request and/or the service requested. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks, Applicant argues the prior art reference Djurdj contains no mention of the order in which the messages are processed or received is randomized and that the combination of Djurdj with Golden is non-obvious. According to MPEP 2145 Section III and X, it is well established that the determination of obvious based on the teaching from references does not require actual physical substitution of elements. The teaches is where the features of the secondary references may be incorporated into the primary structure and whether the references would have suggested the combination. The prior art Djurdji explicitly teaches using randomization on incoming message in order to address load balancing issues. Applying PRNG to address load can be used as part of a system that randomizes message order. When incoming messages apply randomization they are transformed into a sequence of pseudorandom numbers, that are approximate random sequences. Accordingly, the examiner respectfully disagrees, that the prior art Djurdj fails to teaches or suggest that the messages received are randomized (order changed). Examiner further notes that the applicant does not consider the combination of Djurdj and Golden in the argument. The examiner further notes that applicant has not rebutted the reasons to combine in the rejection. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that independent claims 18 and 20 with similar features as claim 1 are allowable over the prior art based on the arguments above. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the arguments are not persuasive. See response above, the rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues that dependent claims 2-7, 8-17, 19 and 21-22, based on the allowable subject matter of the independent claims 1, 18 and 20 are also allowable. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as the arguments are not persuasive.. See response above, the rejection is maintained.
Examiner Note
The specification possession of the PRNG process comprise:
[34] Pseudo-randomization for deterministic computations. In some examples of the deterministic credit system of the present disclosure, relevant computation only occurs upon receipt of an input message, such as a partially-formed trade. Consequently, randomization is only invoked when an input message is received that includes an action whose computation requires it-and crucially not at any other time. A pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) can thus be utilized that takes as its seed data exclusively derived from the input message, ultimately requiring the use of randomization in its computation. To appear random, the data chosen from the message must be substantially independent of the things in it requiring randomization. If the ordering of the two participants appearing in a partially-formed trade requires randomizing, then the identifiers of those two participants appearing in the input message would not be good candidates for input to a PRNG's seed.
[35] Example inputs to the PRNG's seed may be a unique, monotonically increasing integer trade identifier generated by and inserted into the message by the matching engine 140, or a monotonically increasing integer message sequence number assigned to the message and generated by an engine of the electronic trading venue 110 that sequences messages before they are sent to the credit checking engine 130. If the size of the data desired to be used as a seed from the message exceeds that required by the PRNG, it may be hashed down to an appropriate length (for example, 64 bits) using an off-the-shelf hashing algorithm.
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 1-7 and 19-22 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 1-7, 10-17 and 22:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 1 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 1 recites the functions (1) receive data (2) prune credit lines (3) create single identifying key for each user pair (4) store pruned credit lines (5) receive a match trade message (6) identify first data from message (7) select second data for PRNG seed (8) using pseudo randomly order message with other messages (9) using second data as input to PRNG seed (10) generate match trade (11) generate credit check result based on matched trade and pruned credit lines. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance commercial activity.
The specification that in electronic trading venues risk checking components are applied to perform credit checking but may be too horizontally scaled which causes problems when certain types of credit limits, such as net credit, since net credit is not suitable to being partitioned among distinct components. The specification discloses in trading systems there are prime brokerage relationships and groups which limits being imposed on currencies, instruments and in conjunction with ungrouped limits, partitioning credit limits is inhibited. Because of the issues with portioning credit limits there is a need where trades involve bilateral credit between participants provide high performance credit checking while reducing the need for horizontal scaling or implementing larger systems (see spec 0005-0007). Accordingly the specification makes clear that the focus of the invention is to solve a problem rooted in the abstract concept of credit checking in bilateral trades between participants.
In light of the specification, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward manipulating financial data for use in analysis, randomizing electronic stock exchange order request and performing the matching of trades between pair of users and generating a result. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales activity and risk mitigation. These concepts 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 recite a process by a system to (1) receive data-insignificant extra solution activity of (2) prune credit lines – a financial process to limit available credit for use in a transaction (3) create single identifying key for each user pair in bilateral credit lines- applying generic identifying key for a transaction process(4) store pruned credit lines- apply technology to store transaction related data (5) receive a match trade message- insignificant extra solution activity -mere data gathering (6) identify first data from message – analyzing transaction related data (7) select second data for PRNG seed – selecting from data from a message as a random input for a starting value for a PRNG algorithm-applying technology for a trading application (8) using pseudo randomly order message with other messages-applying randomizing technology for a trading input request process (9) using second data as input to PRNG seed – using data from a message as a random input for a starting value for a PRNG algorithm-applying technology for a trading application (10) generate match trade- financial practice (11) generate credit check result based on matched trade and pruned credit lines.- risk mitigation - providing the result of a commercial activity a business practice. 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 without details of technical implementation. 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. This is true with respect to the limitations “create single identifying key”, “select second data …from message to be used in a PRNG seed to randomize the ordering of the message…”, “using the PRNG…pseudo-randomly order the message with the one or more messages”, as the claimed limitations do not provide any details for performing the operations claimed beyond the high level generic function with an expected result. 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 are directed toward receiving and manipulating data for a business process – a common business practice. The combination of limitations 1-2 and 3-4 are directed toward creating a key for pair of users participating in a trade and storing data manipulated related to a transaction - common business practice. The combination of limitations 1-4 and 5-10 are directed toward applying PRNG algorithms to randomizing trade input request and matching trades based on data of limitations 1-4 and generating the results of the transaction – applying technology for a business practice. As a whole the claimed limitations 1-10 and 11 are directed toward a randomize input match trading process and generating the result. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology. The input randomization merely identifies the data to be applied for seeding for the initial value for the pseudorandom number generator to be locked using non-essential data in the message as the seed. The application of randomization is not an attempt to improve technology, apply a special use machine or impose meaningful limits upon the judicial exception. The randomization of inputs using data in the message does not impact any underlying technology. Accordingly the claim limitations do not include indications of integration into a practical application.
Although the claim recites the additional elements beyond the abstract idea including “a processor” and “using a PRNG” with messages. The claimed processor is merely being applied to perform generic computer operations of receiving “a message” related to a trading activity; to perform the high level operation “pruning credit lines” which is merely being applied to filter different credit lines for a trading activity; to perform the high level operations “creating a single identifying key” which is merely applying technology for each pair of users of bilateral credit lines in a trading activity; to perform the “merging…credit lines”, “aliasing …each credit line” and “performing …credit checks” which are processes for performing a trading activity using credit. The use of the PRNG is recited at a high level of generality being applied in a trading environment in order to randomize the ordering of the message. Thus the PRNG recited use is not to improve upon any technology or to provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology. Neither does the use of the PRNG impose meaningful limits upon the identified abstract idea that goes beyond merely linking to use to the technology to a particular abstract idea. There is no technology applied or used to perform the “identifying”, “selecting” and “generating” steps claimed. Therefore, the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements that go beyond merely applying the technology for performing the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of retrieving, randomizing inputs, using PRNG to randomly order trade messages, manipulating data, create an identifying key and store the manipulated data and perform a trade a process and generating the result which 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 a transaction process and does 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. There is no indication in the claim language that the structure and/or the manner in which a computer system operates is changed in any way. The Specification describes the providing a credit checking where for a successful trade requires that both counterparties have extended credit to one another (para 0024)
The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “creating single identifying key” operation is 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)). Accordingly when considered as a whole or combination of parts, reflects an improvement in computer functionality, an improvement in technology or a technical field, or that the claim otherwise integrates the recited abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that term is used in the 2019 Revised Guidance.
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 includes a system comprising a processor-–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer system will include a processor capable of performing the basic computer functions of “receive”, “prune credit”, “create identifying key”, “store” and “generate result” . . . . The additional limitations of “selecting …data …to be used in a PRNG seed” (e.g. initial value of the PRNG), “using the PRNG, to pseudo-randomly order the message with other messages using data as the input seed” do not recite any details as to technical implementation but rather focus on the data to be selected for the seed of the PRNG. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the trading process to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. The recited ----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”, “prune credit”, “create identifying key”, “store”, “receive message”, “identify first data”, “select second data”, “using PRNG, using second data as input seed”, “generate match trade” and “generate credit check”... 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. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. 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 conclude 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:
The specification discloses FIG. 5; para 0041-0042
Evidence of bilateral credit screening/pruning includes. US 11,100,577 B1 by O’Hagan et al “The order may then be matched by the arbitrator (such as that of EP 625275 described above), in segments, where credit exists between counterparties (the parties are pre-screened for credit between them) or, in other words, there is bilateral credit:;US Pub No. US Pub No. 2006/0080216 A1 by Hausman et al – para 0102-0103, para 0105; GB 2417344 A by Howorka discloses Abstract; “However, in a credit-screened market, individual quote queues are prepared for each trading floor on the basis of their credit bilateral or otherwise, with maker quotes…The DPI calculation method for a credit screened market is the same as that described above for a non-credit screened market except that a separate calculation of DPI must be made for each taker floor as it is applied in relation to the dealable queue available to that floor which is dependent on that floor's allocation of credit to and from other trading floors….However, this trading floor only has a bilateral credit relationship with every second quote in the queue. Thus, the floor will only see quotes A, D, B. F and I with quotes H. E, C and G being screened out”
FR 2969436 A1 by Kounto et al; US Pub No. 2021/0152532 A1 by Reinhold; US Patent No. 10,209,960 B1 by Packes JR et al;
US Pub. No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al -para 0063 “in fact, the sequence is determined by a small set of initial, called the PRNG’s state which are referred to herein as the seed value 315. Random seeds or seed values may be generated from the state of the sending device 10, such its clock or time, but as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, seed values can be generated from any number of sources that are cryptographically secure such as from a hardware random number generator. …”
Additional evidence with respect to randomizing trade orders includes:
A new concept of holding orders to tackle latency arbitrage will be trialled
for pauses of at least three milliseconds on USD/MXN trades on Thomson
Reuters Matching, just weeks after rival EBS completed the roll-out of its
latency floor” by Euromoney (2014); US Pub No. 2007/0106593 A1 by Lin -para 0088 “one or more offer intervals .delta..sub.1, .delta..sub.2, . . . , .delta..sub.N occurring during trading interval .DELTA..sub.N 402, may not be stochastic in nature, but be deterministic, for example, defined by a dimension other than time, such as allocated inventory. In the example of allocated inventory, a deterministic interval offer interval .delta..sub.f terminates upon exhaustion of the allocated inventory or, more generally, upon a condition established by other, non-temporal dimensions.”
With respect to the “use” of PRNG to randomly order a message with other messages using second data as input into the PRNG, such application of PRNG in trading exchanges is known application of the technology. For evidence the examiner provides:
NPL “Randomization and Optimization on Electronic Stock Exchanges | MIT Technology Review” by Christopher Mims; Thomson Reuters to trial randomization on FX matching platform by Clark; US Patent No. 11,995,719 B1 by Isaacson et al; US Patent No. 9,929,743 B1 by Acuna-Rohter et al; US Pub. No. 20110313907 A1 by Schluetter et al; US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden -Col 2 lines 32-35, 53-58 “The value extracted from the service request (e.g., the source identification value) as the seed value to the random number generator.”…” For example, the value may be a source identification value (e.g., a customer ID, a user ID), a source address value (e.g., an internet protocol address (IP)), or other source unique value.”; Col 5 lines 22-23, Col 6 lines 26-38; EP 2429113 A2 by Lim et al – “For example, the value may be a source identification value (e.g., a customer ID, a user ID), a source address value (e.g., an internet protocol address (IP)), or other source unique value.”; CA 2750189 A1 by Taylor et al –“pull-tab games can use seed value(s) as inputs into a deterministic function to reduce the maintenance and overhead associated with game tickets. The seed value may be derived from information associated with the pull-tab game on a ticket generation request”
As provided in the evidence above, seed selection can be arbitrary according to user design with a plethora of options for deriving selected seeds, the evidence includes: US Patent No. 10,209,960 B1 by Packes JR et al – abstract; US Pub. No. 2017/0353302 A1 by Fernandez et al -para 0151, US Patent no. 9,268,531 B1 by Woo et al- discloses selected seed value from pre-stored seeds; US Pub. No 2004/0128387 A1 by Chin et al- para 0054 “broadcast timing information”,
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 2-7, 10-17 and 21-22 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward manipulating data- mere data manipulation does not transform the claim subject matter. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward generating an identifying first and second key and concatenate the first and second key- well known and conventional technology and commonly applied in business practice. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward key comprising second 32 bit integers and first key 64 bit integers - well known and conventional technology and commonly applied in business practice. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward determine credit amount for first line credit, determine second credit amount for second line credit and store smaller first net credit and second net credit as a single merged credit line- a business practice. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward storing data in a hashmap- common application of technology in business practice and well known technology. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward generating an alias for each credit line of manipulated data used for reference credit line- a business practice. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward executing credit check during trading session and execute backup credit checking during trading session- a business process. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward receive data, sequence un-sequenced data and transmit data -mere data receiving, manipulation and transmission. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward data comprises credit line changes during trading session-a business practice. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward data comprises information about trades- a business practice. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward receiving trades, concatenated identifier and conduct credit check- a business process. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward determine credit lines stored, determine smallest credit limit, set trade size, draw down credit limit and transmit trade message- a common business practice. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward determine no credit lines stored and send message- a business practice. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward determine credit lines stored, determine smallest credit limit, set trade size, determine actual trade size and send trad message- a business process. Dependent claim 21 is directed toward limiting a PRNG seed to be an increasing integer trade identifier inserted – well understood technology – as evidenced above, US Pub. No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al -para 0063 “…Random seeds or seed values may be generated from the state of the sending device 10, such its clock or time, but as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, seed values can be generated from any number of sources that are cryptographically secure such as from a hardware random number generator. Dependent claim 22 is directed toward assigning a identifier and concatenating identifiers of each user in pair of users-the specification disclose sending credit information
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. 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 2-7, 10-17 and 21-22 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 Claim 18:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 18 and the dependent claim. 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 18 recites the functions (1) receiving a message (2) identifying first data from message (3) selecting second data other than first data from message used for PRNG seed (4) using the PRNG using the second data as an input (5) generating match trade (6) generating credit line (7) pruning credit lines (8) creating single identifying key for each user pair (9) merging credit lines (10) aliasing credit lines store pruned credit lines (10) performing credit check during trading session. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of transaction process. The recitation of generic “by a processor” and the creation of an identifying key merely provide a tool to execute the method and using a PRNG to randomly ordering the message and creation of an identifying key a tool applied in business are not the focus of the invention. This is because when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward manipulating financial for use in analysis and performing the matching of trades between pair of users and generating a result. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales activity. These concepts 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 recite a process by a system to (1) receive data-insignificant extra solution activity of (2) prune credit lines – limiting credit lines for a financial process risk mitigation (3) select second data for PRNG seed – selecting from data from a message as a random input for a starting value for a PRNG algorithm-applying technology for a trading application (4) using pseudo randomly order message with other messages-applying randomizing technology for a trading input request process (5) generating match trade – sales activity (6) generating credit line- a financial process for providing credit (7) pruning credit lines- filtering credit for use in a financial process (8) creating single identifying key for each user pair in bilateral trade-- applying generic identifying key for a transaction process (9) merging credit lines- a financial process of combining credit adding to total credit limit (10) aliasing each credit line not pruned to a data structure such that data structure used by all users referencing credit line - data labeling credit lines, classifying for use in a transaction process (11) performing credit check during trading session- a risk mitigation business practice.
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. This is true with respect to the limitations “create single identifying key” as the claimed limitations do not provide any technology to perform the recited function. 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 1-4 is directed toward receiving and identifying order data and selecting/extracting seed data for use in PRNG randomization of orders. The combination of limitations 1-4 and 5-7 is directed toward a sales activity and credit line management - a business practice. The combination of limitations 1-7 and 8-10 are directed toward creating a key for pair of users participating in a trade and manipulating and storing credit lines - common business practice. The combination of limitations 1-10 and 11 are directed toward generating/manipulating credit lines based on data of limitations 1-10 and preforming a credit check – a common business practice. As a whole the claimed limitations are directed toward a trading process and generating the result. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
Although the claim recites the additional elements beyond the abstract idea including “a processor” and “using a PRNG” with messages. The claimed processor is merely being applied to perform generic computer operations of receiving “a message” related to a trading activity; to perform the high level operation “pruning credit lines” which is merely being applied to filter different credit lines for a trading activity; to perform the high level operations “creating a single identifying key” which is merely applying technology for each pair of users of bilateral credit lines in a trading activity; to perform the “merging…credit lines”, “aliasing …each credit line” and “performing …credit checks” which are processes for performing a trading activity using credit. The use of the PRNG is recited at a high level of generality being applied in a trading environment in order to randomize the ordering of the message. Thus the PRNG recited use is not to improve upon any technology or to provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology. Neither does the use of the PRNG impose meaningful limits upon the identified abstract idea that goes beyond merely linking to use to the technology to a particular abstract idea.
The functions recited in the claims recite as a combination the concept of credit line manipulation and preforming credit checks directed toward a business practice. The concept of randomizing inputted orders is not an invention of the client as can be demonstrated below under step 2B. Selection of seeds for PRNG randomization are arbitrary and can be selected from any design choice. (see 2B below). The claim limitations makes clear that the limitations use PRNG and are not attempting to improve computer technology or capability or any underlying technology.
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 a transaction process and does 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, a 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. There is no indication in the claim language that the structure and/or the manner in which a computer system operates is changed in any way. The Specification describes the providing a credit checking where for a successful trade requires that both counterparties have extended credit to one another (para 0024)
The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “creating single identifying key” operation is performed. The claim limitations do not provide technical processes as it relates to seed selection, but instead merely limits the source of the seed that is selected and applied in PRNG or the use of PRNG. 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)). Accordingly when considered as a whole or combination of parts, reflects an improvement in computer functionality, an improvement in technology or a technical field, or that the claim otherwise integrates the recited abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that term is used in the 2019 Revised Guidance.
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 includes a processor-–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every processor capable of performing the basic functions of “generating credit line”, “prune credit”, “create identifying key”, “merging credit lines”, “aliasing credit lines stored” and “performing credit check” . . . As a result, none of the hardware recited by the method claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the trading process to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. The recited ----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 “receiving”, “identifying”, “selecting”, “using PRNG ordering message”, “generating matched trade”, “prune credit”, “create identifying key”, “merging credit lines”, “aliasing each credit line, “performing credit checks”... 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. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. 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 conclude 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:
The specification discloses FIG. 5; para 0041-0042
Evidence of bilateral credit screening/pruning includes. US 11,100,577 B1 by O’Hagan et al “The order may then be matched by the arbitrator (such as that of EP 625275 described above), in segments, where credit exists between counterparties (the parties are pre-screened for credit between them) or, in other words, there is bilateral credit:;US Pub No. US Pub No. 2006/0080216 A1 by Hausman et al – para 0102-0103, para 0105; GB 2417344 A by Howorka discloses Abstract; “However, in a credit-screened market, individual quote queues are prepared for each trading floor on the basis of their credit bilateral or otherwise, with maker quotes…The DPI calculation method for a credit screened market is the same as that described above for a non-credit screened market except that a separate calculation of DPI must be made for each taker floor as it is applied in relation to the dealable queue available to that floor which is dependent on that floor's allocation of credit to and from other trading floors….However, this trading floor only has a bilateral credit relationship with every second quote in the queue. Thus, the floor will only see quotes A, D, B. F and I with quotes H. E, C and G being screened out”
FR 2969436 A1 by Kounto et al; US Pub No. 2021/0152532 A1 by Reinhold; US Patent No. 10,209,960 B1 by Packes JR et al;
US Pub. No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al -para 0063 “in fact, the sequence is determined by a small set of initial, called the PRNG’s state which are referred to herein as the seed value 315. Random seeds or seed values may be generated from the state of the sending device 10, such its clock or time, but as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, seed values can be generated from any number of sources that are cryptographically secure such as from a hardware random number generator. …”
With respect to the “use” of PRNG to randomly order a message with other messages using second data as input into the PRNG, such application of PRNG in trading exchanges is known application of the technology. For evidence the examiner provides:
A new concept of holding orders to tackle latency arbitrage will be trialled
for pauses of at least three milliseconds on USD/MXN trades on Thomson
Reuters Matching, just weeks after rival EBS completed the roll-out of its latency floor” by Euromoney (2014); US Pub No. 2007/0106593 A1 by Lin -para 0088 “one or more offer intervals .delta..sub.1, .delta..sub.2, . . . , .delta..sub.N occurring during trading interval .DELTA..sub.N 402, may not be stochastic in nature, but be deterministic, for example, defined by a dimension other than time, such as allocated inventory. In the example of allocated inventory, a deterministic interval offer interval .delta..sub.f terminates upon exhaustion of the allocated inventory or, more generally, upon a condition established by other, non-temporal dimensions.”
NPL “Randomization and Optimization on Electronic Stock Exchanges | MIT Technology Review” by Christopher Mims; Thomson Reuters to trial randomization on FX matching platform by Clark; US Patent No. 11,995,719 B1 by Isaacson et al; US Patent No. 9,929,743 B1 by Acuna-Rohter et al; US Pub. No. 20110313907 A1 by Schluetter et al; US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden -Col 2 lines 32-35, 53-58 “The value extracted from the service request (e.g., the source identification value) as the seed value to the random number generator.”…” For example, the value may be a source identification value (e.g., a customer ID, a user ID), a source address value (e.g., an internet protocol address (IP)), or other source unique value.”; Col 5 lines 22-23, Col 6 lines 26-38; EP 2429113 A2 by Lim et al – “For example, the value may be a source identification value (e.g., a customer ID, a user ID), a source address value (e.g., an internet protocol address (IP)), or other source unique value.”; CA 2750189 A1 by Taylor et al –“pull-tab games can use seed value(s) as inputs into a deterministic function to reduce the maintenance and overhead associated with game tickets. The seed value may be derived from information associated with the pull-tab game on a ticket generation request”
As provided in the evidence above, seed selection can be arbitrary according to user design with a plethora of options for deriving selected seeds, the evidence includes: US Patent No. 10,209,9960 B1 by Packes JR et al – abstract; US Pub. No. 2017/0353302 A1 by Fernandez et al -para 0151, US Patent no. 9,268,531 B1 by Woo et al- discloses selected seed value from pre-stored seeds; US Pub. No 2004/0128387 A1 by Chin et al- para 0054 “broadcast timing information”,
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 19 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 18. Dependent claim 19 is directed toward receiving a trade, concatenating first identifier, conducting credit check, determining credit check, determining smallest credit limit, setting trade size, drawing down credit lines, transmitting trade message – a business process. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 18. 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 19 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 Claim 20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory computer readable medium, as in independent Claim 20. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." 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 18 recites the functions (1) receive a message (2) identify first data from message (3) select second data other than first data from message used for PRNG seed (4) generate a hash-down second data by hashing second data to a length not exceeding maximum length for use as seed input PRNG seed (5) using the PRNG using hashed down second data as input in PRNG seed (6) generate match trade (7) generating credit line (8) pruning credit lines (9) creating single identifying key for each user pair (10) merge credit lines (11) alias credit line among credit lines not pruned credit lines (12) perform credit check during trading session. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of transaction process. The recitation of generic “instructions executed by a processor” and the creation of an identifying key merely provide a tool to execute the method and using a PRNG to randomly ordering the message and creation of an identifying key a tool applied in business are not the focus of the invention. This is because when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward manipulating financial for use in analysis and performing the matching of trades between pair of users and generating a result. Such concepts can be found in the abstract category of sales activity. These concepts 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 recite a instructions executed by a processor to (1) receive a message -insignificant extra solution activity (2) identify first data from message – analyze data (3) select second data other than first data from message used for PRNG seed - selecting data for use for data manipulation (4) generate a hash-down second data by hashing second data to a length not exceeding maximum length for use as seed input PRNG seed – data manipulation and mathematical process (5) using the PRNG using hashed down second data as input in PRNG seed -data manipulation and mathematical process (6) generate match trade-sales activity (7) generating credit line – sales activity (8) pruning credit lines – filtering credits lines for use in a transaction (9) creating single identifying key for each user pair of a bilateral trade--- applying generic identifying key for a transaction process (10) merge credit lines- business practice (11) alias credit line among credit lines not pruned credit lines - data labeling credit lines, classifying for use in a transaction process (12) perform credit check during trading session-sales activity.
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 instructed processor at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. This is true with respect to the limitations “create single identifying key” as the claimed limitations do not provide any technology to perform the recited function. 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 1-2 are is directed toward receiving and identifying order data. The combination of limitations 1-2 and 3-5 are directed toward and selecting/extracting seed data for use in PRNG randomization of orders of limitations 1-2. The combination of limitations 1-5 and 6-8 is directed toward a sales activity and credit line management of the limitations 1-2- a business practice. The combination of limitations 1-8 and 9 are directed toward creating a key for pair of users participating in a trade -a business practice. The combination of limitations 1-9 and 10-11 are directed toward generating/manipulating credit lines based on data of limitations 1-9 and preforming a credit check – a business practice. As a whole the claimed limitations 1-11 and 12 are directed toward a trading process and generating the result. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
The use of PRNG technology to randomize order for trades 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 credit line manipulation and preforming credit checks directed toward a business practice. The concept of randomizing inputted orders is not an invention of the client as can be demonstrated below under step 2B. Selection of seeds for PRNG randomization are arbitrary and can be selected from any design choice. (see 2B below). The claim limitations makes clear that the limitations use PRNG and are not attempting to improve computer technology or capability or any underlying technology.
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 a transaction process and does 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, a 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. There is no indication in the claim language that the structure and/or the manner in which a computer system operates is changed in any way. The Specification describes the providing a credit checking where for a successful trade requires that both counterparties have extended credit to one another (para 0024)
Accordingly, although the claim recites the additional elements beyond the abstract idea including “a processor” and “using a PRNG” with messages. The claimed processor is merely being applied to perform generic computer operations of receiving “a message” related to a trading activity; to perform the high level operation “pruning credit lines” which is merely being applied to filter different credit lines for a trading activity; to perform the high level operations “creating a single identifying key” which is merely applying technology for each pair of users of bilateral credit lines in a trading activity; to perform the “merging…credit lines”, “aliasing …each credit line” and “performing …credit checks” which are processes for performing a trading activity using credit. The use of the PRNG is recited at a high level of generality being applied in a trading environment in order to randomize the ordering of the message. Thus the PRNG recited use is not to improve upon any technology or to provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology. Neither does the use of the PRNG impose meaningful limits upon the identified abstract idea that goes beyond merely linking to use to the technology to a particular abstract idea.
The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “creating single identifying key” operation is performed. The claim limitations do not provide technical processes as it relates to seed selection, but instead merely limits the source of the seed that is selected and applied in PRNG or the use of PRNG. 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)). Accordingly when considered as a whole or combination of parts, reflects an improvement in computer functionality, an improvement in technology or a technical field, or that the claim otherwise integrates the recited abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that term is used in the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Therefore, 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 non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions–is purely functional and generic. Nearly every mediums for implementing a instructions will include a “processor” capable of executing instruction for the basic computer functions -of “receive a message”, “identify first order data”, “select second data from message”, “generate hash-down second data to a length not to exceed maximum for use”, “using PRNG using second data as input to PRNG seed”, “generate a match”, “generating credit line”, “prune credit”, “create identifying key”, “merging credit lines”, “aliasing credit lines stored” and “performing credit check” - As a result, none of the hardware recited by the medium claim offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the business process to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via processors.
The recited functions are high level without details of technical implementation. The recited computer elements ----are some of the most basic elements 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”, “prune credit”, “create identifying key”, “store” and “generate result”... 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. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. 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 conclude 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:
The specification discloses FIG. 5; para 0041-0042
Evidence of bilateral credit screening/pruning includes. US 11,100,577 B1 by O’Hagan et al “The order may then be matched by the arbitrator (such as that of EP 625275 described above), in segments, where credit exists between counterparties (the parties are pre-screened for credit between them) or, in other words, there is bilateral credit:;US Pub No. US Pub No. 2006/0080216 A1 by Hausman et al – para 0102-0103, para 0105; GB 2417344 A by Howorka discloses Abstract; “However, in a credit-screened market, individual quote queues are prepared for each trading floor on the basis of their credit bilateral or otherwise, with maker quotes…The DPI calculation method for a credit screened market is the same as that described above for a non-credit screened market except that a separate calculation of DPI must be made for each taker floor as it is applied in relation to the dealable queue available to that floor which is dependent on that floor's allocation of credit to and from other trading floors….However, this trading floor only has a bilateral credit relationship with every second quote in the queue. Thus, the floor will only see quotes A, D, B. F and I with quotes H. E, C and G being screened out”
A new concept of holding orders to tackle latency arbitrage will be trialled
for pauses of at least three milliseconds on USD/MXN trades on Thomson
Reuters Matching, just weeks after rival EBS completed the roll-out of its
latency floor” by Euromoney (2014); US Pub No. 2007/0106593 A1 by Lin -para 0088 “one or more offer intervals .delta..sub.1, .delta..sub.2, . . . , .delta..sub.N occurring during trading interval .DELTA..sub.N 402, may not be stochastic in nature, but be deterministic, for example, defined by a dimension other than time, such as allocated inventory. In the example of allocated inventory, a deterministic interval offer interval .delta..sub.f terminates upon exhaustion of the allocated inventory or, more generally, upon a condition established by other, non-temporal dimensions.”
With respect to the “use” of PRNG to randomly order a message with other messages using second data as input into the PRNG, such application of PRNG in trading exchanges is known application of the technology. For evidence the examiner provides:
FR 2969436 A1 by Kounto et al; US Pub No. 2021/0152532 A1 by Reinhold; US Patent No. 10,209,960 B1 by Packes JR et al;
US Pub. No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al -para 0063 “in fact, the sequence is determined by a small set of initial, called the PRNG’s state which are referred to herein as the seed value 315. Random seeds or seed values may be generated from the state of the sending device 10, such its clock or time, but as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, seed values can be generated from any number of sources that are cryptographically secure such as from a hardware random number generator. …”
With respect to the “use” of PRNG to randomly order a message with other messages using second data as input into the PRNG, such application of PRNG in trading exchanges is known application of the technology. For evidence the examiner provides:
NPL “Randomization and Optimization on Electronic Stock Exchanges | MIT Technology Review” by Christopher Mims; Thomson Reuters to trial randomization on FX matching platform by Clark; US Patent No. 11,995,719 B1 by Isaacson et al; US Patent No. 9,929,743 B1 by Acuna-Rohter et al; US Pub. No. 20110313907 A1 by Schluetter et al; US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden -Col 2 lines 32-35, 53-58 “The value extracted from the service request (e.g., the source identification value) as the seed value to the random number generator.”…” For example, the value may be a source identification value (e.g., a customer ID, a user ID), a source address value (e.g., an internet protocol address (IP)), or other source unique value.”; Col 5 lines 22-23, Col 6 lines 26-38; EP 2429113 A2 by Lim et al – “For example, the value may be a source identification value (e.g., a customer ID, a user ID), a source address value (e.g., an internet protocol address (IP)), or other source unique value.”; CA 2750189 A1 by Taylor et al –“pull-tab games can use seed value(s) as inputs into a deterministic function to reduce the maintenance and overhead associated with game tickets. The seed value may be derived from information associated with the pull-tab game on a ticket generation request”
As provided in the evidence above seed selection can be arbitrary according to user design with a plethora of options for deriving selected seeds, the evidence includes: US Patent No. 10,209,9960 B1 by Packes JR et al – abstract; US Pub. No. 2017/0353302 A1 by Fernandez et al -para 0151, US Patent no. 9,268,531 B1 by Woo et al- discloses selected seed value from pre-stored seeds; US Pub. No 2004/0128387 A1 by Chin et al- para 0054 “broadcast timing information”,
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 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.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 10-12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016061658 A1 by Djurdj et al (Djurdj), in view of US Patent No. 8,041,985 by Callaway et al. (Callaway) in view of CN 10,606,3186 A by Melton (Melton) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0175179 A1 by A1 by Iyer et al (Iyer) and further in view of US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden (Golden) and US Pub. No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al (Tropp)
In reference to Claim 1:
Djurdj teaches:
(Currently Amended) A system for reducing data transmission in a network through sequenced input data that is deterministically generated into output data to avoid transmission or persistent storage of the output data and maintains auditability, fault tolerance, and/or recovery((Djurdj) in at least FIG. 1), the system comprising:
a processor of a … engine programmed ((Djurdj) in at least FIG. 2; para 0052) to:
(ii) after initiation of the trading session:
(a) receive a message that is to be ordered along with one or more other messages from among … data ((Djurdj) in at least FIG. 6; para 0062-0063, para 0079-0081),
(b) identify first data from the message that is to be retained for ordering the message with the one or more other messages, the first data comprising identifiers of a participant from which the message originates from ((Djurdj) in at least para 0063 wherein the prior art teaches data records prioritized by criteria including broker identification, para 0065, para 0066 wherein the prior art teaches the data content of new messages matched to determine if data may be updated to create a new data record where the data represents unfilled portion of an order, para 0077 wherein the prior art teaches orders containing prioritization criteria where order criteria includes broker identifier): …
(d) using the PRNG, pseudo-randomly order the message with the one or more other messages, …((Djurdj) in at least para 0079-0083, para 0088)…
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
a processor of a credit checking engine
… unsequenced data…
(i) before initiation of a trading session:
(a) receive, from a credit admin engine, data indicating a plurality of credit lines; and
(b) prune credit lines among the plurality of credit lines that are not part of any bilateral credit lines, wherein each bilateral credit line comprises a first credit line extended from a first user to a second user and a second credit line extended from the second user to the first user;
(c) create a single identifying key for each pair of users in each of the bilateral credit lines;
(d) store the pruned credit lines indexed by the single identifying key for each pair of users;
select second data, other than the first data, from the message, that can be used in a pseudo-random number generator’s (PRNG’s) seed to randomize the ordering of the message with the one or more other messages, the second data comprising data in the message that is independent of the first data and is not ordered in relation to the one or more other messages:
…using the second data as an input to the PRNG’s seed;
(c ) generate a matched trade based on the ordering of the message and the one or more other messages; and
(f) generate a deterministic credit check result based on the ordering and the stored pruned credit lines indexed by the single identifying key for the pair of users, thereby avoiding transmission of the deterministic credit check result.
Calloway teaches:
receive a message that is to be ordered along with one or more other messages from among unsequenced data ((Callaway) in at least Abstract; Col 17 lines 33-Col 18 lines 1-48, Col 19 lines 50-60, Col 20 lines 13);
Both Djurdj and Callaway are directed toward a trading process for investments that are paired and matched. Callaway teaches the motivation of applying fault tolerant protocol on received un-sequenced messages that are sequenced in order to provide consistent reliable operations to ensure market stability and to pass incoming orders in sequence in order to prevent data threads that may not be sequenced from jumping ahead or cause failure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the before the effective filing of the invention to modify the process for receiving orders of Djurdj to include the receiving data process and fault tolerance protocol of Callaway since Callaway teaches the motivation of applying fault tolerant protocol on received un- sequenced messages that are sequenced in order to provide consistent reliable operations to ensure market stability and to pass incoming orders in sequence in order to prevent data threads that may not be sequenced from jumping ahead or cause failure.
Melton teaches:
a processor of a credit checking engine programmed ((Melton) in at least para 0041 wherein the prior art teaches a synchronization engine to determine whether credit is available; para 0028-0029) to:
before initiation of a trading session:
receive, from a credit admin engine, data indicating a plurality of credit lines ((Melton) in at least para 0009-0011, para 0015-0017, para 0032); and
(b) prune credit lines among the plurality of credit lines that are not part of any bilateral credit lines, wherein each bilateral credit line comprises a first credit line extended from a first user to a second user and a second credit line extended from the second user to the first user ((Melton) in at least para 0007, para 0016-0018):
(c ) create a … identifying key for each pair of users in each of the bilateral credit lines ((Melton) in at least Abstract; para 0012-0013, para 0016-0019, para 0024-0027, para 0033, para 0036, para 0038-0042);
(d) store the pruned credit lines indexed by the single identifying key for each pair of users ((Melton) in at least para 0019, para 0038, para 0043);
(ii) after initiation of the trading session:
(c ) generate a matched trade based on the ordering of the message and the one or more other messages ((Melton) in at least background)
(f) generate a deterministic credit check result based on the matched trade and the stored pruned credit lines indexed by the single identifying key for the pair of users, thereby avoiding transmission of the deterministic credit check result.((Melton) in at least para 0020-0022, para 0028, para 0033-0047, para 0056, para 0059)
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders where the received orders can be arranged according to time. Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of screening/pruning the extension of credit lines so that participants that are not essentially the same. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include screening/pruning credit as taught by Melton since Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of screening/pruning the extension of credit lines so that participants that are not essentially the same.
Iyer teaches:
create a single identifying key for each pair of users ((Iyer) in at least para 0053)
Both Djurdj and Iyer are directed toward data transmission for transaction terminals . Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment as there has been a significant increase in electronic transactions (see para 0002, para 0028, para 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the transmission of transaction data of Djurdj to include creating identifying key for user pairs of Iyer since Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034)
Golden teaches:
(b) identify first data from the message that is to be retained for ordering the message with the one or more other messages, the first data comprising identifiers of a participant from which the message originates from ((Golden) in at least Col 2 lines 26-48 wherein the prior art teaches when a load balancer receives a service request extracting identifying values for use in selecting a subset of available hosts to process the request; Col 8 lines 62-col 9 lines 1-15 wherein the prior art teaches extracting from the service request information identifying the source of the request, source IP address or other source identifiers
(c) select second data, other than the first data, from the message, to be used in a pseudo-random number generator’s (PRNG’s) seed to randomize the ordering of the message with the one or more other messages the second data comprising data in the message that is independent of the first data and is not ordered in relation to the one or more other messages((Golden) in at least FIG. 4; Col 2 lines 49-67 wherein the prior art teaches employing random number generator that produces same sequence of value when initialized with same seed value, where the seed value can be extracted from the service request (such as source identification value); Col 3 lines 1-7; Col 9 lines 16-30, Col 10 lines 9-21, Col 12 lines 48-65):
…using the second data as an input to the PRNG’s seed ((Golden) in at least Col 2 lines 49-67, Col 10 lines 10-20 wherein the prior art teaches a choice of second data as input to the seed, col 14 lines 10-15 wherein the prior art teaches “the seed value may a value extracted from the service request that is indicative of source of the request and/or the service requested”)
Both Djurdj and Golden apply randomization for request received in order to address latency/load capacity issues in data transmission. Djurdj teaches the data records being received are matched (identified) with present records to determine priority and using randomization of incoming messages as a tool to address latency tolerance. Golden also teaches randomization of incoming messages in order to address load capacity. Although latency (amount of time) and load (bandwidth) are not the same technical elements of data transmission, a possible reason for latency issue could be bandwidth capacity. According to KSR, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field of a different one based on design incentives if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly the difference between the art (latency vs load/bandwidth) where encompassed in known variations and its principle are known in the art. Accordingly, in view of the identified incentives one of ordinary skill in the art could have implemented the claimed variations of the prior art and the claimed variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Golden does not teach the identifying first data and selecting second data to be used as seed for PRNG, the prior art does teach “extracting identifying values for use in selecting a subset of available hosts to process the request” which is analogous to identifying a first data value for use in the commercial process and teaches “extracting a value from the request/message to be applied as seed an input”, the prior art teaches extracting seed …” and teaches “applying a seed value to the rand, …the seed value may a value extracted from the service request that is indicative of source of the request and/or the service requested “ (col 14 lines 9-14, Col 9 lines 4-24) and teaches “, which is analogous to selecting second data value for seed. The extracted identifying data such as customer ID, source ID value, ect… as taught by the are for use to process the request is analogous to the claimed limitation process of identifying first data for ordering message (user to process request) and the prior art teaches extracting a different value extract from the request as the seed. Accordingly, the prior art suggest a first data that is identified and used for service request and selecting a second data value for use as a seed for initiating PRNG.
The prior art Djurdj teaches “obtaining pseudo-randomly selecting a number [seed] according to a specific precision (e.g. nanosecond, microsecond) between a range which is separate from the order data that has been identified (matched) in the request. Seeds are inherent in pseudo-randomization processes. The prior art Djurdj contained a randomization initiation process which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of the seed parameter extracted from the message. The prior art Golden provides evidence that the substituted parameter for seed selection and its functions were known in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Tropp teaches:
select … data, other than the … data, from the message, to be used in a pseudo-random number generator’s (PRNG’s) seed to randomize the ordering of the message with the one or more other messages, the …[selected] data comprising data in the message that is independent of the first data and in no ordered in relation to the one or more other messages: ((Tropp) in at least para 0030, para 0063 wherein the prior art teaches message related values applied for generating PRNG determined by small set of initial values which may be generated from state of sending device such as it clock or time)
Both Djurdi and Tropp are directed toward applying pseudo random calculation which inherently requires an initial stating/seed value. The prior art Djurdj teaches “obtaining pseudo-randomly selecting a number [seed] according to a specific precision (e.g. nanosecond, microsecond) between a range which is applying time sequences as the initial value of the PRNG. Tropp teaches the motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized seed values can be generated from any number of sources that are cryptographically secure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the source of the time sequence used for initializing PRNG of Djurdi to include the seed value generated from the timer of the sending device of Tropp since Tropp teaches the motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized seed values can be generated from any number of sources that are cryptographically secure.
The prior art Djurdj teaches “obtaining pseudo-randomly selecting a number [seed] according to a specific precision (e.g. nanosecond, microsecond) between a range which is separate from the order data that has been identified (matched) in the request. The prior art Djurdj contained a randomization initiation process which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of the seed parameter extracted from the message related to data messages. The prior art Tropp provides evidence that the substituted parameter for seed selection and its functions were known in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp and Golden discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Original) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein to prune the credit lines, the processor is further programmed to:
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
remove credit lines that are not part of any bilateral credit lines from use before conducting the trading session
Melton teaches:
remove credit lines that are not part of any bilateral credit lines from use before conducting the trading session ((Melton) in at least para 0007, para 0016-0018).
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders where the received orders can be arranged according to time. Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of screening/pruning the extension of credit lines so that participants that are not essentially the same. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include screening/pruning credit as taught by Melton since Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of screening/pruning the extension of credit lines so that participants that are not essentially the same.
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp and Golden discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Original) The system of claim 1, wherein to create the single identifying key for each pair of users (see rejection of claim 1 above), the processor is further programmed to:
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
generate a first unique identifying key for the first user of the pair of users;
generate a second unique identifying key for the second user of the pair of users; and
concatenate the first unique identifying key with the second unique identifying key.
Iyer teaches:
generate a first unique identifying key for the first user of the pair of users ((Iyer) in at least para 0052 wherein the prior art teaches typical encryption includes key pair and symmetric keys, para 0053, para 0054);
generate a second unique identifying key for the second user of the pair of users ((Iyer) in at least para 0052 wherein the prior art teaches typical encryption includes key pair and symmetric keys, para 0053, para 0054);; and
concatenate the first unique identifying key with the second unique identifying key ((Iyer) in at least para 0052 wherein the prior art teaches typical encryption includes key pair and symmetric keys, para 0053, para 0054);
Both Djurdj and Iyer are directed toward data transmission for transaction terminals. Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the application of creating encryption keys of Melton to include creating identifying key for user pairs of Iyer since Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034)
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp and Golden discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4
(Original) The system of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above),
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first unique identifying key and the second unique identifying key each comprise different 32-bit integers, and the single identifying key comprises a 64-bit integer.
Iyer teaches:
wherein the first unique identifying key and the second unique identifying key each comprise different 32-bit integers, and the single identifying key comprises a 64-bit integer. ((Iyer) in at least para 0034)
Both Djurdj and Iyer are directed toward data transmission for transaction terminals. Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment and that the data transmission with different number byes and string type(see para 0028, para 0034) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the application of creating encryption keys of Melton to include creating identifying key for user pairs of Iyer since Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment and that the data transmission with different number byes and string type(see para 0028, para 0034).
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp and Golden discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6.
(Original) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the processor is further programmed to
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
store each of the plurality of credit lines in a hashmap.
Melton teaches:
store each of the plurality of credit lines in a hashmap. ((Melton) in at least para 0033-0037, para 0041-0043)
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward providing processes to address data traffic issues and directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders where the received orders can be arranged according to time and storing data based on data contained in messages. Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of storing market data with screened credit market data so as to reduce market updates generated after peak network traffic so as to reduce packet loss. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the processes for addressing data traffic issues of Djurdj to include storing credit data as taught by Melton since Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of storing market data with screened credit market data so as to reduce market updates generated after peak network traffic so as to reduce packet loss. .
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp and Golden discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7
(Original) The system of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the processor is further programmed to:
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
generate an alias for each credit line among the plurality of credit lines that was not pruned to a single data structure reference such that the single data structure reference is used by all users referencing the credit line, wherein the alias reduces an amount of lookup operations on the hashmap during the trading session.
Melton teaches.
generate an alias for each credit line among the plurality of credit lines that was not pruned to a single data structure reference such that the single data structure reference is used by all users referencing the credit line, wherein the alias reduces an amount of lookup operations on the hashmap during the trading session. ((Melton) in at least para 0043-0044 wherein the prior art teaches an encryption identifier that is mapped to database)
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders. Melton teaches the motivation of mapping an encryption key to eligible market participants in order to screen out users from viewing credit lines for trades that are ineligible. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include screening/pruning credit as taught by Melton since Melton teaches the motivation of mapping an encryption key to eligible market participants in order to screen out users from viewing credit lines for trades that are ineligible.
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp and Golden discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10.
(Original) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the processor is further programmed to:
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
execute a live credit checking during the trading session; and
execute a backup credit checking engine that performs credit checking during the trading session when the live credit checking engine fails.
Melton teaches:
execute a live credit checking during the trading session ((Melton) in at least para 0010, para 0016 wherein the prior art teaches credit market determination online; para 0033, para 0036, para 0051, para 0055); and
Although the prior art does not recite the language “live”, the prior art does teach trading online and teaches the credit information being provided in microseconds and updated and sent to all participants. Accordingly the prior art provides teaching and suggestion that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward market trading processes. Melton teaches the motivation that different trades require different credit lines and teaches that credit information can be updated and sent to all participants in microseconds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the process for trade orders of Djurdj to include credit lines associated with trades of Melton since Melton teaches the motivation that different trades require different credit lines and teaches that credit information can be updated and sent to all participants in microseconds.
Callaway teaches:
execute a backup credit checking engine that performs credit checking during the trading session when the live credit checking [operation] engine fails. ((Callaway) in at least Abstract; FIG. 5; Col 4 lines 7-21, lines 39-45, Col 7 lines 50-col 8 lines 1-8, Col 8 lines 21-58, Col 11 lines 3-40)
Both Djurdj and Callaway are directed toward a trading process with concerns on transmission errors. Callaway teaches the motivation of applying fault tolerant backup fault tolerance process that mirrors operations of the trading server in order to ensure correct operation or consistent reliable operation to ensure market stability. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the process for addressing transmission errors of Djurdj to include fault tolerance protocol of Callaway since Callaway teaches the motivation of applying fault tolerant backup fault tolerance process that mirrors operations of the trading server in order to ensure correct operation or consistent reliable operation to ensure market stability
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Golden and Tropp discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10. Melton further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11.
(Original) The system of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), further comprising a sequencer programmed to:
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
receive unsequenced data from both a credit administration engine and a matching engine;
sequence the unsequenced data; and
transmit the sequenced data to the live credit checking engine, the backup credit checking engine, and a credit administration engine.
Melton teaches:
receive … data from both a credit administration engine … ((Melton) in at least para 0002, para 0010-0011, para 0014, para 0016, para 0031);
transmit the … data to the live credit checking engine, … and a credit administration engine. ((Melton) in at least para 0005, para 0016-0017, para 0020, para 0027, para 0033-0035, para 0039, para 0041, para 0051, para 0056)
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward trading data transmission for buy/sell orders. Melton teaches the motivation of receiving and transmitting data from credit engines and transmitting data to engines in order to receive credit line data for trade orders and transmit credit data for trades that are eligible for trades. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the process for trade orders of Djurdj to include credit information received/transmitted by Melton since Melton teaches the motivation of receiving and transmitting data from credit engines and transmitting data to engines in order to receive credit line data for trade orders and transmit credit data for trades that are eligible for trades
Callaway teaches:
receive un-sequenced data from … a matching engine ((Callaway) in at least Abstract; Col 6 lines 10-29, Col 17 lines 33-Col 18 lines 1-48, Col 19 lines 15-60, Col 20 lines 13);
sequence the un-sequenced data ((Callaway) in at least Abstract; Col 17 lines 33-Col 18 lines 1-48, Col 19 lines 50-60, Col 20 lines 13); and
transmit the sequenced data to the … the backup credit checking engine…((Callaway) in at least Abstract; Col 17 lines 33-Col 18 lines 1-48, Col 19 lines 50-60, Col 20 lines 13); and
Both Djurdj and Callaway are directed toward providing solutions for data transmission issues for trades. Callaway teaches the motivation of applying fault tolerant protocol on received un-sequenced messages that are sequenced in order to provide consistent reliable operations to ensure market stability, to pass incoming orders in sequence in order to prevent data threads that may not be sequenced from jumping ahead or cause failure. Calloway further teaches the motivation of applying matching engines in order to perform trade operations that are copied by the fault tolerance process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the process for receiving orders of Djurdj to include the receiving data process and fault tolerance protocol of Callaway since Callaway teaches the motivation of applying fault tolerant protocol on received un-sequenced messages that are sequenced in order to provide consistent reliable operations to ensure market stability, to pass incoming orders in sequence in order to prevent data threads that may not be sequenced from jumping ahead or cause failure. Calloway further teaches the motivation of applying matching engines in order to perform trade operations that are copied by the fault tolerance process.
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Golden and Tropp discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12.
(Original) The system of claim 11, wherein the un-sequenced data from the credit administration engine (see rejection of claim 11 above) comprises
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
credit line changes made during the trading session
Melton teaches:
credit line changes made during the trading session. ((Melton) in at least para 0002-0003, para 0005, para 0009-0011, para 0014, para 0016-0017, para 0031)
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders that are received. Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of updating credit line information in response to new trade and/or credit data has been received.. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include update of credit information as taught by Melton since Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of updating credit line information in response to new trade and/or credit data has been received.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016061658 A1 by Djurdj et al (Djurdj), in view of US Patent No. 8,041,985 by Callaway et al. (Callaway), in view of CN 10,606,3186 A by Melton (Melton) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0175179 A1 by A1 by Iyer et al (Iyer) in view of US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden (Golden), in view of US Pub No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al (Tropp), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 11,100,577 B1 by O’Hagan et al. (Hagan) .
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp and Golden discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5.
(Original) The system of claim 1, wherein to merge the credit lines within each of the bilateral credit lines (see rejection of claim 1 above), the processor is further programmed to:
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
determine a first net credit amount for a first line of credit in the bilateral credit line;
determine a second net credit amount for a second line of credit in the bilateral credit line; and
store the smaller of the first net credit and the second net credit as a net credit amount for the single merged credit line.
Melton teaches:
determine a first … credit amount for a first line of credit in the bilateral credit line ((Melton) in at least para 0011-0014, para 0015-0020, para 0039, para 0056);
determine a second … credit amount for a second line of credit in the bilateral credit line ((Melton) in at least para 0010, para 0012, para 0016-0017, para 0020, para 0041-0042, para 0056); and
store the smaller of the first …credit and the second … credit as a net credit amount for the single merged credit line ((Melton) in at least para 0041).
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders where the received orders can be arranged according to time. Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive amount credit line data is applicable to user trades and teaches the motivation of determining credit line in order to determine credit necessary for trade. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include determining credit line as taught by Melton since Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive amount credit line data is applicable to user trades and teaches the motivation of determining credit line in order to determine credit necessary for trade.
Hagan teaches:
determine a first net credit amount for a first line of credit in the bilateral credit line ((Hagan) in at least FGIG. 21A-B; Col 20 lines 4-18);
determine a second net credit amount for a second line of credit in the bilateral credit line ((Hagan) in at least FGIG. 21A; Col 20 lines 4-18); and
store the smaller of the first net credit and the second net credit as a net credit amount for the single merged credit line ((Hagan) in at least FGIG. 21A; Col 20 lines 4-18, lines 35-55, Col 22 lines 58-63, Col 24 lines 7-20).
Both Djurdj and Hagan are directed toward market trades. Hagan teaches the motivation of determining the credit lines of the first and second trader in order to determines where credit exist between counterparties and the motivation of determining the total credit to determine whether the credit amount reflected should be reduced. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the detail on the trading process of Djurdj to include determining credit amounts of the first and second credit line as taught by Hagan since Hagan teaches the motivation of determining the credit lines of the first and second trader in order to determines where credit exist between counterparties and the motivation of determining the total credit to determine whether the credit amount reflected should be reduced.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016061658 A1 by Djurdj et al (Djurdj), in view of US Patent No. 8,041,985 by Callaway et al. (Callaway) in view of CN 10,606,3186 A by Melton (Melton) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0175179 A1 by A1 by Iyer et al (Iyer) in view of US Pub No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al (Tropp) in view of US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden (Golden) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2007/0118459 A1 by Bauerschmidt et al. (Bauerschmidt)
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp and Golden discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13.
(Original) The system of claim 11, wherein the unsequenced data from a matching engine (see rejection of claim 11 above) comprises
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
information about partially-formed trades.
Bauerschmidt teaches:
information about partially-formed trades.((Bauerschmidt) in at least para 0176, para 0178-0182)
Both Djurdj and Bauerschmidt are directed toward buy/sell trade order data that includes cancelling, updating prices/volume etc (Djurdj para 0074) Bauerschmidt teaches the motivation that traders who put in trades specify specific requirements on trades such as size, price, options, delivery dates as well as whether the trade should be an all or nothing trade, partial fills or not possible in alternate environments. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the data related trade orders received of Djurdj to include trade requirements as taught by Bauerschmidt since Bauerschmidt teaches the motivation that traders who put in trades specify specific requirements on trades such as size, price, options, delivery dates as well as whether the trade should be an all or nothing trade, partial fills or not possible in alternate environments
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016061658 A1 by Djurdj et al (Djurdj), in view of US Patent No. 8,041,985 by Callaway et al. (Callaway) in view of CN 10,606,3186 A by Melton (Melton) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0175179 A1 by A1 by Iyer et al (Iyer) and further in view of US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden (Golden) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2007/0118459 A1 by Bauerschmidt et al. (Bauerschmidt)
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp and Golden discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14.
(Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the credit checking engine (see rejection of claim 1 above) is further programmed to, during the trading session:
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
receive a partially-formed trade from a matching engine, the partially-formed trade comprising an agreement between the first user and the second user, conditioned on passing a credit check;
concatenate a first identifier of the first user with a second identifier of the second user to obtain a participant-pair key; and
conduct the credit check using the participant-pair key
Bauerschmidt teaches:
receive a partially-formed trade from a matching engine, the partially-formed trade comprising an agreement between the first user and the second user, conditioned on passing a credit check; .((Bauerschmidt) in at least Abstract; para 0006, para 0023-0024, para 0043, para 0045, para 0056-0057, para 0083, para 0176-0177, para 0178-0182, para 0222, para 0251-0252, para 0271, para 0307)
Both Djurdj and Bauerschmidt are directed toward trade processes. Bauerschmidt teaches the motivation contract that are entered in the market and matched and cleared with a second user that requires specific credit and specific requirements on trades such as size, price, options, delivery dates as well as whether the trade should be an all or nothing trade, partial fills or not possible in alternate environments. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the data related to trades received of Djurdj to include trade requirements as taught by Bauerschmidt since Bauerschmidt teaches the motivation contract that are entered in the market and matched with a second user that requires specific credit and specific requirements on trades such as size, price, options, delivery dates as well as whether the trade should be an all or nothing trade, partial fills or not possible in alternate environments
Iyer teaches:
concatenate a first identifier of the first user with a second identifier of the second user to obtain a participant-pair key((Iyer) in at least para 0052 wherein the prior art teaches typical encryption includes key pair and symmetric keys, para 0053, para 0054);
Both Djurdj and Iyer are directed toward communicating financial data. Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the communication of data of Djurdj to include creating identifying key for user pairs of Iyer since Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034).
Melton teaches:
conduct the credit check using the participant-pair key ((Melton) in at least Abstract; para 0012, para 0016-0017, para 0018, para 0023, para 0027, para 0033, para 0038-0039, para 0041).
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward communicating data and orders for financial instruments. Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of conducting credit checks on buyer/sellers of a trade in order to meet trade requirements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include performing credit checks related to buy/sell trades as taught by Melton since Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of conducting credit checks on buyer/sellers of a trade in order to meet trade requirements.. .
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016061658 A1 by Djurdj et al (Djurdj), in view of US Patent No. 8,041,985 by Callaway et al. (Callaway) in view of CN 10,606,3186 A by Melton (Melton) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0175179 A1 by A1 by Iyer et al (Iyer) in view of US Pub No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al (Tropp) in view of US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden (Golden) in view of US Pub No. 2007/0118459 A1 by Bauerschmidt et al. (Bauerschmidt) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of CA 2628944 A1 by Yoo et al. (Yoo) and in view of US Pub No. 2013/0254089 A1 by Kirby et al (Kirby)
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp, Golden and Bauerschmidt discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15.
(Original) The system of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the processor is further programmed to
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
determine that one or more credit lines stored in the system are associated with the participant-pair key;
determine a smallest credit limit among the one or more credit lines; set an actual trade size of the partially-formed trade to be the lesser of a current trade size of the partially-formed trade and the smallest credit limit; draw down each of the one or more credit lines by the actual trade size; and
transmit a completed trade message to the matching engine.
Melton teaches:
determine that one or more credit lines stored in the system are associated with the participant-pair key ((Melton) in at least para 0005, para 0016-0017, para 0041);
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders that are received. Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of determining credit lines stored as it relates to trading pair in order to meet trade requirements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include storing credit information as taught by Melton since Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of determining credit lines stored as it relates to trading pair in order to meet trade requirements.
Yoo teaches:
determine a smallest credit limit among the one or more credit lines ((Yoo) in at least para 0143, para 0145 wherein the prior art teaches assigning lowest credit amounts to spreads);
set an actual trade size of the partially-formed trade to be the lesser of a current trade size of the partially-formed trade and the smallest credit limit ((Yoo) in at least para 0036, para 0039, para 0084-0085, para 0118, para 0145);
draw down each of the one or more credit lines by the actual trade size ((Yoo) in at least para 0143, para 0145 wherein the prior art teaches assigning lowest credit amounts to spreads); and
transmit a completed trade message to the matching engine ((Yoo) in at least para 0021, para 0034, para 0037, para 0056-0058, para 0061, para 0094)
Both Djurdj and Yoo are directed toward buyer/seller trading of financial instruments. Yoo teaches the motivation when performing a trade with two or multiple partnering parties which multiple counterparties assigning priority of credit spread amounts in order to allocate spread credit to for specified trade allocations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the buyer/seller trading of financial instruments of Djurdj to include assignment of credit lines of Yoo since Yoo teaches the motivation when performing a trade with two or multiple partnering parties which multiple counterparties assigning priority of credit spread amounts in order to allocate spread credit to for specified trade allocations.
Kirby teaches:
set an actual trade size of the partially-formed trade to be the lesser of a current trade size of the partially-formed trade and the smallest credit limit ((Kirby) in at least para 0048, para 0065, para 0070); and
draw down each of the one or more credit lines by the actual trade size ((Kirby) in at least para 0048 wherein the prior art teaches that the credit level required may change and that additional credit may be added to meet trade requirement; para 0066, para 0070)
Both Djurdj and Kirby are directed toward investment trading between buyer and sellers. Kirby teaches that trades between parties include credit levels and provides the motivation of system process for managing credit limits related to credit risk in order to quantify certainty of clearing and the motivation of transmitting messages to traders on status of trade closing and credit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include the credit determination and notification of order status as taught by Kirby since Kirby teaches the motivation of a system process for managing credit limits related to credit risk in order to quantify certainty of clearing and the motivation of transmitting messages to traders on status of trade closing and credit.
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Tropp, Golden and Bauerschmidt discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 17.
(Original) The system of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the processor is further programmed to:
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
determine that one or more credit lines stored in the system are associated with the participant-pair key
determine a smallest credit limit among the one or more credit lines;
set an actual trade size of the partially-formed trade to be the lesser of a current trade size of the partially-formed trade and the smallest credit limit;
determine that the actual trade size is less than a minimum allowable trade size of the system; and
send an unwind-trade message to the matching engine.
Melton teaches:
determine that one or more credit lines stored in the system are associated with the participant-pair key ((Melton) in at least para 0005, para 0016-0017, para 0041);
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders that are received. Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of determining credit lines stored as it relates to trading pair in order to meet trade requirements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include storing credit information as taught by Melton since Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of determining credit lines stored as it relates to trading pair in order to meet trade requirements.
Yoo teaches:
determine a smallest credit limit among the one or more credit lines ((Yoo) in at least para 0143, para 0145 wherein the prior art teaches assigning lowest credit amounts to spreads);
set an actual trade size of the partially-formed trade to be the lesser of a current trade size of the partially-formed trade and the smallest credit limit ((Yoo) in at least para 0036, para 0039, para 0084-0085, para 0118, para 0145);
Both Djurdj and Yoo are directed toward trading between buyer/seller of financial instruments. Yoo teaches the motivation when performing a trade with two or multiple partnering parties which multiple counterparties assigning priority of credit spread amounts in order to allocate spread credit to for specified trade allocations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the details of trading between parties of Djurdj to include assignment of credit lines of Yoo since Yoo teaches the motivation when performing a trade with two or multiple partnering parties which multiple counterparties assigning priority of credit spread amounts in order to allocate spread credit to for specified trade allocations.
Kirby teaches:
set an actual trade size of the partially-formed trade to be the lesser of a current trade size of the partially-formed trade and the smallest credit limit ((Kirby) in at least para 0048, para 0065, para 0070) ;
determine that the actual trade size is less than a minimum allowable trade size of the system ((Kirby) in at least para 0048, para 0065, para 0070); and
send an unwind-trade message to the matching engine. ((Kirby) in at least para 0070-0073, para 0235).
Both Djurdj and Kirby are directed toward investment trading between parties. Kirby teaches that trades between parties include credit levels and provides the motivation of a system process for managing credit limits related to credit risk in order to quantify certainty of clearing and the motivation of transmitting messages to traders on status of trade closing and credit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Melton to include the credit determination and notification of order status as taught by Kirby since Kirby teaches the motivation of a system process for managing credit limits related to credit risk in order to quantify certainty of clearing and the motivation of transmitting messages to traders on status of trade closing and credit.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016061658 A1 by Djurdj et al (Djurdj), in view of US Patent No. 8,041,985 by Callaway et al. (Callaway) in view of CN 10,606,3186 A by Melton (Melton) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0175179 A1 by A1 by Iyer et al (Iyer) in view of US Pub No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al (Tropp)in view of US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden (Golden) in view of US Pub No. 2007/0118459 A1 by Bauerschmidt et al. (Bauerschmidt), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2013/0254089 A1 by Kirby et al (Kirby)
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Golden, Tropp and Bauerschmidt discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16.
(Original) The system of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the processor is further programmed to:
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
determine that no credit lines are stored in the system that are associated with the participant-pair key; and
send an unwind-trade message to the matching engine.
Melton teaches:
determine…credit lines are stored in the system that are associated with the participant-pair key ((Melton) in at least para 0010, para 0012, para 0016-0017, para 0020, para 0039, para 0056)
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders that are received. Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of determining whether the credit lines stored are related to trading pair in order to meet trade requirements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include storing credit information as taught by Melton since Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of determining whether the credit lines stored are related to trading pair in order to meet trade requirements.
Kirby teaches:
determine that no credit lines are stored in the system …((Kirby) in at least para 0048 wherein the prior art teaches determining credit level including zero credit level, para 0065, para 0234-0235; and
send an unwind-trade message to the matching engine ((Kirby) in at least para 0070-0073, para 0235).
Both Djurdj and Kirby are directed toward investment trading between parties. Kirby teaches that trades between parties include credit levels and provides a system process for managing credit limits related to credit risk in order to quantify certainty of clearing and the motivation of transmitting messages to traders on status of trade closing and credit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Melton to include the credit determination and notification of order status as taught by Kirby since Kirby teaches the motivation of a system process for managing credit limits related to credit risk in order to quantify certainty of clearing and the motivation of transmitting messages to traders on status of trade closing and credit.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016061658 A1 by Djurdj et al (Djurdj), in view of US Patent No. 8,041,985 by Callaway et al. (Callaway) in view of CN 10,606,3186 A by Melton (Melton) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0175179 A1 by A1 by Iyer et al (Iyer) and further in view of US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden (Golden) in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al (Tropp), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2019/0147431 A1 by Galebach et al (Gale)
In reference to Claim 22:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer, Golden and Tropp discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 22.
(New) The system of claim 1, wherein the single identifying key for each pair of users is created (see rejection of claim 1 above) by:
Djurdi does not explicitly teach:
assigning a unique integer identifier to each user; and
concatenating the unique integer identifiers of each user in the pair of users.
Gale teaches:
wherein the single identifying key for each pair of users is created by:
assigning a unique integer identifier to each user ((Gale) in at least FIG. 5A-B; para 0030 wherein the prior art teaches generating unified user identifiers that comprise multiple addresses with respective public-private key pairs used to establish relationships between user computer devices used in executing debit/credit transactions, para 0033 wherein the prior art teaches credit/debit transaction to include credit protocol application to generate unified user identifier comprising each address associated with public key of PKI key pair and to include registry which stores unified user identifiers establishing relationships between computing devices of users used to validate debit credit transactions between users, para 0036, para 0077); and
concatenating the unique integer identifiers of each user in the pair of users ((Gale) in at least para 0033, para 0077)
Although Gale does not explicitly describe the identifiers as “integer identifiers”, the prior art does teach that identifiers can be an address of a computing device (abstract, para 0009), “a text identifier associated with …public keys” (para 0030), text identifiers can include numbers, both numeric and alphanumeric characters or alphanumeric characters. According to KSR, common sense rationale obviousness includes teaching which allows choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art Gale teaches that there is a need in the art to provide single identifiers for each pair of users in transactions in order to establish relationships between the transaction parties for debit credit transaction and teaches that such identifiers can include text identifiers. Text identifiers can include a finite number of identified predictable solutions (numeric only, alphanumeric and numeric or alphanumeric) for use as identifiers. One of ordinary skill in the art given that the solutions for text identifiers is finite could have pursued known potential solutions to arrive at the identifiers comprising integer numbers as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the prior art Gale provides some teaching that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Both Djurdj and Gale are directed toward credit/debit transactions between parties. Gale teaches the motivation of creating unified user identifiers associated with public/private keys of key pairs in order to establish relationships between user computing devices used in the execution of debit/credit transactions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify transaction process of Djurdi to include single identifiers for each pair of users as taught by Gale since Gale teaches the motivation of creating unified user identifiers associated with public/private keys of key pairs in order to establish relationships between user computing devices used in the execution of debit/credit transactions
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016061658 A1 by Djurdj et al (Djurdj), in view of US Patent No. 8,041,985 by Callaway et al. (Callaway) in view of CN 10,606,3186 A by Melton (Melton) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0175179 A1 by A1 by Iyer et al (Iyer), in view of US Pub No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al (Tropp) and further in view of US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden (Golden)
In reference to Claim 18:
Djurdj teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method ((Djurdj) in at least FIG. 5; para 0004, para 0077, para 0094), comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a message that is to be ordered along with one or more other messages from among … data ((Djurdj) in at least FIG. 6; para 0062-0063, para 0079-0081);
identifying first data from the message that is to be retained for ordering the message with the one or more other messages, the first data comprising identifiers of a participant from which the messages originate from ((Djurdj) in at least para 0063 wherein the prior art teaches data records prioritized by criteria including broker identification, para 0065, para 0066 wherein the prior art teaches the data content of new messages matched to determine if data may be updated to create a new data record where the data represents unfilled portion of an order, para 0077 wherein the prior art teaches orders containing prioritization criteria where order criteria includes broker identifier); …
using the PRNG, pseudo-randomly ordering the message with the one or more other messages, …((Djurdj) in at least para 0055, para 0079-0083, para 0088)…
the second data comprising a unique, monotonically increasing integer trade identifier generated and inserted into the message by a matching engine ((Djurdj) in at least FIG. 6 wherein the prior art teaches pseudo-random triggered by clock time; para 0078)
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
unsequenced data
selecting second data, other than the first data, from the message, to be used in a pseudo-random number generator’s (PRNG’s) seed to randomize the ordering of the message with the one or more other messages, the second data comprising a unique, monotonically increasing integer trade identifier generated and inserted into the message by a matching engine, that is independent of the first data and is not ordered in relation to the one or more other messages:
using the second data as an input to the PRNG’s seed:
generating a matched trade based on the ordering of the message and the one or more other messages:
generating, by the processor, a plurality of credit lines associated with the matched trade, each extending a line of credit from one user associated with the matched trade to another user associated with the matched trade;
pruning, by the processor, credit lines among the plurality of credit lines that are not part of any bilateral credit lines, wherein each bilateral credit line comprises a first credit line extended from a first user to a second user and a second credit line extended from the second user to the first user;
creating, by the processor, a single identifying key for each pair of users in each of the bilateral credit lines;
merging, by the processor, the credit lines within each of the bilateral credit lines to generate a single merged credit line for each bilateral credit line;
aliasing, by the processor, each credit line among the plurality of credit lines that was not pruned to a single data structure reference such that the single data structure reference is used by all users referencing the credit line; and
performing, by the processor, credit checks during a trading session using the aliases of each credit line and each single merged credit line for each bilateral credit line.
Callaway teaches:
receiving, by a processor, a message that is to be ordered along with one or more other messages from among unsequenced data ((Callaway) in at least Abstract; Col 17 lines 33-Col 18 lines 1-48, Col 19 lines 50-60, Col 20 lines 13);
Both Djurdj and Callaway are directed toward a trading process for investments that are paired and matched. Callaway teaches the motivation of applying fault tolerant protocol on received un-sequenced messages that are sequenced in order to provide consistent reliable operations to ensure market stability and to pass incoming orders in sequence in order to prevent data threads that may not be sequenced from jumping ahead or cause failure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the process for receiving orders of Djurdj to include the receiving data process and fault tolerance protocol of Callaway since Callaway teaches the motivation of applying fault tolerant protocol on received un- sequenced messages that are sequenced in order to provide consistent reliable operations to ensure market stability and to pass incoming orders in sequence in order to prevent data threads that may not be sequenced from jumping ahead or cause failure.
Golden teaches:
identifying first data from the message that is to be retained for ordering the message with the one or more other messages, the first data comprising identifiers of a participant from which the messages originate from ((Golden) in at least Col 2 lines 26-48 wherein the prior art teaches when a load balancer receives a service request extracting identifying values for use in selecting a subset of available hosts to process the request; Col 8 lines 62-col 9 lines 1-15 wherein the prior art teaches extracting from the service request information identifying the source of the request, source IP address or other source identifiers)
selecting second data, other than the first data, from the message, to be used in a pseudo-random number generator’s (PRNG’s) seed to randomize the ordering of the message with the one or more other messages, the second data comprising a unique, … identifier generated and inserted into the message by a matching engine, that is independent of the first data and is not ordered in relation to the one or more other messages ((Golden) in at least FIG. 4; Col 2 lines 49-67 wherein the prior art teaches employing random number generator that produces same sequence of value when initialized with same seed value, where the seed value can be extracted from the service request (such as source identification value); Col 3 lines 1-7; Col 9 lines 16-30, Col 10 lines 9-21, Col 12 lines 48-65)
…using the second data as an input to the PRNG’s seed ((Golden) in at least Col 2 lines 49-67, Col 10 lines 10-20 wherein the prior art teaches a choice of second data as input to the seed, col 14 lines 10-15 wherein the prior art teaches “the seed value may a value extracted from the service request that is indicative of source of the request and/or the service requested”)
Both Djurdj and Golden apply randomization for request received in order to address latency/load capacity issues in data transmission. Djurdj teaches the data records being received are matched (identified) with present records to determine priority and using randomization of incoming messages as a tool to address latency tolerance. Golden also teaches randomization of incoming messages in order to address load capacity. Although latency (amount of time) and load (bandwidth) are not the same technical elements of data transmission, a possible reason for latency issue could be bandwidth capacity. According to KSR, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field of a different one based on design incentives if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly the difference between the art (latency vs load/bandwidth) where encompassed in known variations and its principle are known in the art. Accordingly, in view of the identified incentives one of ordinary skill in the art could have implemented the claimed variations of the prior art and the claimed variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Golden does not teach the identifying first data and selecting second data to be used as seed for PRNG, the prior art does teach “extracting identifying values for use in selecting a subset of available hosts to process the request” which is analogous to identifying a first data value for use in the commercial process and teaches “extracting a value from the request/message to be applied as seed an input”, the prior art teaches extracting seed …” and teaches “applying a seed value to the rand, …the seed value may a value extracted from the service request that is indicative of source of the request and/or the service requested “ (col 14 lines 9-14, Col 9 lines 4-24) and teaches “, which is analogous to selecting second data value for seed. The extracted identifying data such as customer ID, source ID value, ect… as taught by the are for use to process the request is analogous to the claimed limitation process of identifying first data for ordering message (user to process request) and the prior art teaches extracting a different value extract from the request as the seed. Accordingly, the prior art suggest a first data that is identified and used for service request and selecting a second data value for use as a seed for initiating PRNG.
The prior art Djurdj teaches “obtaining pseudo-randomly selecting a number [seed] according to a specific precision (e.g. nanosecond, microsecond) between a range which is separate from the order data that has been identified (matched) in the request. Seeds are inherent in pseudo-randomization processes. The prior art Djurdj contained a randomization initiation process which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of the seed parameter extracted from the message. The prior art Golden provides evidence that the substituted parameter for seed selection and its functions were known in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Tropp teaches:
selecting …data, … from the message, to be used in a pseudo-random number generator’s (PRNG’s) seed to randomize the ordering of the message with the one or more other messages, the …[selected] data comprising a unique, monotonically increasing integer … identifier generated and inserted into the message …, that is independent of the first data and is not ordered in relation to the one or more other messages, the …[selected] data comprising data in the message that is independent of the first data and is not to be ordered in relation to the one or more other messages: ((Tropp) in at least para 0030, para 0063 wherein the prior art teaches message related values applied for generating PRNG determined by small set of initial values which may be generated from state of sending device such as it clock or time)
Both Djurdi and Tropp are directed toward applying pseudo random calculation which inherently requires an initial stating/seed value. The prior art Djurdj teaches “obtaining pseudo-randomly selecting a number [seed] according to a specific precision (e.g. nanosecond, microsecond) between a range which is applying time sequences as the initial value of the PRNG. Tropp teaches the motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized seed values can be generated from any number of sources that are cryptographically secure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the source of the time sequence used for initializing PRNG of Djurdi to include the seed value generated from the timer of the sending device of Tropp since Tropp teaches the motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized seed values can be generated from any number of sources that are cryptographically secure.
The prior art Djurdj teaches “obtaining pseudo-randomly selecting a number [seed] according to a specific precision (e.g. nanosecond, microsecond) between a range which is separate from the order data that has been identified (matched) in the request. The prior art Djurdj contained a randomization initiation process which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of the seed parameter extracted from the message related to data messages. The prior art Tropp provides evidence that the substituted parameter for seed selection and its functions were known in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Melton teaches:
generating a matched trade based on the ordering of the message and the one or more other messages ((Melton) in at least background):
generating, by the processor, a plurality of credit lines associated with the matched trade, each extending a line of credit from one user associated with the matched trade to another user associated with the matched trade ((Melton) in at least para 0005 wherein the prior art teaching known trading practice, para 0011-0019);
pruning, by the processor, credit lines among the plurality of credit lines that are not part of any bilateral credit lines, wherein each bilateral credit line comprises a first credit line extended from a first user to a second user and a second credit line extended from the second user to the first user ((Melton) in at least para 0006-0009, para 0016-0018):;
creating, by the processor, a single identifying key for each pair of users in each of the bilateral credit lines ((Melton) in at least Abstract; para 0012-0013, para 0016-0019, para 0024-0027, para 0033, para 0036, para 0038-0042);
merging, by the processor, the credit lines within each of the bilateral credit lines to generate a single merged credit line for each bilateral credit line ((Melton) in at least para 0041);
aliasing, by the processor, each credit line among the plurality of credit lines that was not pruned to a single data structure reference such that the single data structure reference is used by all users referencing the credit line ((Melton) in at least para 0041 wherein the prior art teaches an encryption identifier that is mapped to database); and
performing, by the processor, credit checks during a trading session using the aliases of each credit line and each single merged credit line for each bilateral credit line. ((Melton) in at least para 0010, para 0012-0014, para 0016-0017, para 0041 wherein the prior art teaches an encryption identifier that is mapped to database)
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders where the received orders can be arranged according to time. Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of screening/pruning the extension of credit lines so that participants that are not essentially the same. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include screening/pruning credit as taught by Melton since Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of screening/pruning the extension of credit lines so that participants that are not essentially the same.
Iyer teaches:
creating, by the processor, a single identifying key for each pair of users in each of the bilateral credit lines; ((Iyer) in at least para 0053)
Both Djurdj and Iyer are directed toward communicating trade data. Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the process for communicating trade data of Djurdj to include creating identifying key for user pairs of Iyer since Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034)
In reference to Claim 20:
Djurdj teaches:
(Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor ((Djurdj) in at least para 0052), cause the processor to:
receiving, by a processor, a message that is to be ordered along with one or more other messages from among … data ((Djurdj) in at least FIG. 6; para 0062-0063, para 0079-0081);
identifying first data from the message that is to be retained for ordering the message with the one or more other messages, the first data comprising identifiers of a participant from which the message originates from ((Djurdj) in at least para 0063 wherein the prior art teaches data records prioritized by criteria including broker identification, para 0065, para 0066 wherein the prior art teaches the data content of new messages matched to determine if data may be updated to create a new data record where the data represents unfilled portion of an order, para 0077 wherein the prior art teaches orders containing prioritization criteria where order criteria includes broker identifier);
…the second data comprising a unique, monotonically increasing integer trade identifier generated and inserted into the message by a matching engine ((Djurdj) in at least FIG. 6 wherein the prior art teaches pseudo-random triggered by clock time; para 0078)
using the PRNG, pseudo-randomly ordering the message with the one or more other messages, using the second data as an input to the PRNG’s seed: (Djurdj) in at least FIG. 6; para 0055, para 0078-0083, para 0088)…
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
…unsequenced data…
selecting second data, other than the first data, from the message, that can be used in a pseudo-random number generator’s (PRNG’s) seed to randomize the ordering of the message with the one or more other messages, the second data comprising data in the message that is independent of the first data and is not ordered in relation to the one or more other messages,…
generating a matched trade based on the ordering of the message and the one or more other messages:
generating, by the processor, a plurality of credit lines associated with the matched trade, each extending a line of credit from one user associated with the matched trade to another user associated with the matched trade;
pruning, by the processor, credit lines among the plurality of credit lines that are not part of any bilateral credit lines, wherein each bilateral credit line comprises a first credit line extended from a first user to a second user and a second credit line extended from the second user to the first user;
creating, by the processor, a single identifying key for each pair of users in each of the bilateral credit lines;
merging, by the processor, the credit lines within each of the bilateral credit lines to generate a single merged credit line for each bilateral credit line;
aliasing, by the processor, each credit line among the plurality of credit lines that was not pruned to a single data structure reference such that the single data structure reference is used by all users referencing the credit line; and
performing, by the processor, credit checks during a trading session using the aliases of each credit line and each single merged credit line for each bilateral credit line.
Callaway teaches:
receiving, by a processor, a message that is to be ordered along with one or more other messages from among unsequenced data ((Callaway) in at least Abstract; Col 17 lines 33-Col 18 lines 1-48, Col 19 lines 50-60, Col 20 lines 13);
Both Djurdj and Callaway are directed toward a trading process for investments that are paired and matched. Callaway teaches the motivation of applying fault tolerant protocol on received un-sequenced messages that are sequenced in order to provide consistent reliable operations to ensure market stability and to pass incoming orders in sequence in order to prevent data threads that may not be sequenced from jumping ahead or cause failure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the process for receiving orders of Djurdj to include the receiving data process and fault tolerance protocol of Callaway since Callaway teaches the motivation of applying fault tolerant protocol on received un- sequenced messages that are sequenced in order to provide consistent reliable operations to ensure market stability and to pass incoming orders in sequence in order to prevent data threads that may not be sequenced from jumping ahead or cause failure.
Golden teaches:
identify first data from the message that is to be retained for ordering the message with the one or more other messages, the first data comprising identifiers of a participant from which the message originates from ((Golden) in at least Col 2 lines 26-48 wherein the prior art teaches when a load balancer receives a service request extracting identifying values for use in selecting a subset of available hosts to process the request; Col 8 lines 62-col 9 lines 1-15 wherein the prior art teaches extracting from the service request information identifying the source of the request, source IP address or other source identifiers
selecting second data, other than the first data, from the message, that can be used in a pseudo-random number generator’s (PRNG’s) seed to randomize the ordering of the message with the one or more other messages, the second data comprising data in the message that is independent of the first data and is not ordered in relation to the one or more other messages ((Golden) in at least FIG. 4; Col 2 lines 49-67 wherein the prior art teaches employing random number generator that produces same sequence of value when initialized with same seed value, where the seed value can be extracted from the service request (such as source identification value); Col 3 lines 1-7; Col 9 lines 16-30, Col 10 lines 9-21, Col 12 lines 48-65):
using the second data as an input to the PRNG’s seed((Golden) in at least Col 2 lines 49-67, Col 10 lines 10-20 wherein the prior art teaches a choice of second data as input to the seed, col 14 lines 10-15 wherein the prior art teaches “the seed value may a value extracted from the service request that is indicative of source of the request and/or the service requested”)
Both Djurdj and Golden apply randomization for request received in order to address latency/load capacity issues in data transmission. Djurdj teaches the data records being received are matched (identified) with present records to determine priority and using randomization of incoming messages as a tool to address latency tolerance. Golden also teaches randomization of incoming messages in order to address load capacity. Although latency (amount of time) and load (bandwidth) are not the same technical elements of data transmission, a possible reason for latency issue could be bandwidth capacity. According to KSR, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field of a different one based on design incentives if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly the difference between the art (latency vs load/bandwidth) where encompassed in known variations and its principle are known in the art. Accordingly, in view of the identified incentives one of ordinary skill in the art could have implemented the claimed variations of the prior art and the claimed variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Golden does not teach the identifying first data and selecting second data to be used as seed for PRNG, the prior art does teach “extracting identifying values for use in selecting a subset of available hosts to process the request” which is analogous to identifying a first data value for use in the commercial process and teaches “extracting a value from the request/message to be applied as seed an input”, the prior art teaches extracting seed …” and teaches “applying a seed value to the rand, …the seed value may a value extracted from the service request that is indicative of source of the request and/or the service requested “ (col 14 lines 9-14, Col 9 lines 4-24) and teaches “, which is analogous to selecting second data value for seed. The extracted identifying data such as customer ID, source ID value, ect… as taught by the are for use to process the request is analogous to the claimed limitation process of identifying first data for ordering message (user to process request) and the prior art teaches extracting a different value extract from the request as the seed. Accordingly, the prior art suggest a first data that is identified and used for service request and selecting a second data value for use as a seed for initiating PRNG.
The prior art Djurdj teaches “obtaining pseudo-randomly selecting a number [seed] according to a specific precision (e.g. nanosecond, microsecond) between a range which is separate from the order data that has been identified (matched) in the request. Seeds are inherent in pseudo-randomization processes. The prior art Djurdj contained a randomization initiation process which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of the seed parameter extracted from the message. The prior art Golden provides evidence that the substituted parameter for seed selection and its functions were known in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Tropp teaches:
select … data, other than the … data, from the message, that can be used in a pseudo-random number generator’s (PRNG’s) seed to randomize the ordering of the message with the one or more other messages, the …[selected] data comprising data in the message that is independent of the first data and is not ordered in relation to the one or more other messages: ((Tropp) in at least para 0030, para 0063 wherein the prior art teaches message related values applied for generating PRNG determined by small set of initial values which may be generated from state of sending device such as it clock or time)
Both Djurdi and Tropp are directed toward applying pseudo random calculation which inherently requires an initial stating/seed value. The prior art Djurdj teaches “obtaining pseudo-randomly selecting a number [seed] according to a specific precision (e.g. nanosecond, microsecond) between a range which is applying time sequences as the initial value of the PRNG. Tropp teaches the motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized seed values can be generated from any number of sources that are cryptographically secure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the source of the time sequence used for initializing PRNG of Djurdi to include the seed value generated from the timer of the sending device of Tropp since Tropp teaches the motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized seed values can be generated from any number of sources that are cryptographically secure.
The prior art Djurdj teaches “obtaining pseudo-randomly selecting a number [seed] according to a specific precision (e.g. nanosecond, microsecond) between a range which is separate from the order data that has been identified (matched) in the request. The prior art Djurdj contained a randomization initiation process which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of the seed parameter extracted from the message related to data messages. The prior art Tropp provides evidence that the substituted parameter for seed selection and its functions were known in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Melton teaches:
generating a matched trade based on the ordering of the message and the one or more other messages ((Melton) in at least background):
generating, by the processor, a plurality of credit lines associated with the matched trade, each extending a line of credit from one user associated with the matched trade to another user associated with the matched trade ((Melton) in at least para 0005 wherein the prior art teaching known trading practice, para 0011-0019);
pruning, by the processor, credit lines among the plurality of credit lines that are not part of any bilateral credit lines, wherein each bilateral credit line comprises a first credit line extended from a first user to a second user and a second credit line extended from the second user to the first user ((Melton) in at least para 0006-0009, para 0016-0018):;
creating, by the processor, a single identifying key for each pair of users in each of the bilateral credit lines ((Melton) in at least Abstract; para 0012-0013, para 0016-0019, para 0024-0027, para 0033, para 0036, para 0038-0042);
merging, by the processor, the credit lines within each of the bilateral credit lines to generate a single merged credit line for each bilateral credit line ((Melton) in at least para 0041);
aliasing, by the processor, each credit line among the plurality of credit lines that was not pruned to a single data structure reference such that the single data structure reference is used by all users referencing the credit line ((Melton) in at least para 0041 wherein the prior art teaches an encryption identifier that is mapped to database); and
performing, by the processor, credit checks during a trading session using the aliases of each credit line and each single merged credit line for each bilateral credit line. ((Melton) in at least para 0010, para 0012-0014, para 0016-0017, para 0041 wherein the prior art teaches an encryption identifier that is mapped to database)
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders where the received orders can be arranged according to time. Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of screening/pruning the extension of credit lines so that participants that are not essentially the same. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include screening/pruning credit as taught by Melton since Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of screening/pruning the extension of credit lines so that participants that are not essentially the same.
Iyer teaches:
creating, by the processor, a single identifying key for each pair of users in each of the bilateral credit lines; ((Iyer) in at least para 0053)
Both Djurdj and Iyer are directed toward communicating trade data. Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the process for communicating trade data of Djurdj to include creating identifying key for user pairs of Iyer since Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016061658 A1 by Djurdj et al (Djurdj), in view of US Patent No. 8,041,985 by Callaway et al. (Callaway) in view of CN 10,606,3186 A by Melton (Melton) in view of US Pub No. 2020/0175179 A1 by A1 by Iyer et al (Iyer) and further in view of US Patent No. 10,530,845 B1 by Golden (Golden) in view of US Pub No. 2012/0063597 A1 by Tropp et al (Tropp)as applied to claim 18 above in view of US Pub No. 2007/0118459 A1 by Bauerschmidt et al. (Bauerschmidt), and further in view of CA 2628944 A1 by Yoo et al. (Yoo) and in view of US Pub No. 2013/0254089 A1 by Kirby et al (Kirby)
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of Djurdj, Callaway, Melton, Iyer and Golden discloses the limitations of independent claim 18. Djurdj further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19.
(Original) The method of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), further comprising:
Djurdj does not explicitly teach:
receiving a partially-formed trade, the partially-formed trade comprising an agreement between the first user and the second user, conditioned on passing a credit check;
concatenating a first identifier of the first user with a second identifier of the second user to obtain a participant-pair key;
conducting the credit check using the participant-pair key;
determining that one or more credit lines are associated with the participant-pair key;
determining a smallest credit limit among the one or more credit lines;
setting an actual trade size of the partially-formed trade to be the lesser of a current trade size of the partially-formed trade and the smallest credit limit;
drawing down each of the one or more credit lines by the actual trade size; and transmitting a completed trade message.
Melton teaches:
conducting the credit check using the participant-pair key ((Melton) in at least para 0005, para 0010, para 0012, para 0014, para 0017-0022);
determining that one or more credit lines are associated with the participant-pair key ((Melton) in at least para 0005, para 0016-0017, para 0041);
Both Djurdj and Melton are directed toward processing stock market trading orders comprising buy order and sell orders where the received orders can be arranged according to time. Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of screening/pruning the extension of credit lines so that participants that are not essentially the same. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include screening/pruning credit as taught by Melton since Melton teaches the motivation of matching orders as a known process buy/sell order processes (see background). Melton teaches that in a trade exchange occurrence of transaction that it is a bilateral credit relationship based on a market relationship of based on receive credit line data and teaches the motivation of screening/pruning the extension of credit lines so that participants that are not essentially the same.
Bauerschmidt teaches:
receiving a partially-formed trade, the partially-formed trade comprising an agreement between the first user and the second user, conditioned on passing a credit check .((Bauerschmidt) in at least Abstract; para 0006, para 0023-0024, para 0043, para 0045, para 0056-0057, para 0083, para 0176-0177, para 0178-0182, para 0222, para 0251-0252, para 0271, para 0307)
Both Djurdj and Bauerschmidt are directed toward trade processes. Bauerschmidt teaches the motivation contract that are entered in the market and matched and cleared with a second user that requires specific credit and specific requirements on trades such as size, price, options, delivery dates as well as whether the trade should be an all or nothing trade, partial fills or not possible in alternate environments. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the data related to trades received of Djurdj to include trade requirements as taught by Bauerschmidt since Bauerschmidt teaches the motivation contract that are entered in the market and matched with a second user that requires specific credit and specific requirements on trades such as size, price, options, delivery dates as well as whether the trade should be an all or nothing trade, partial fills or not possible in alternate environments
Iyers teaches:
concatenating a first identifier of the first user with a second identifier of the second user to obtain a participant-pair key ((Iyer) in at least para 0052 wherein the prior art teaches typical encryption includes key pair and symmetric keys, para 0053, para 0054);
Both Djurdj and Iyer are directed toward communicating transaction data. Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to expand the details of communicating data to include creating identifying key for user pairs of Iyer since Iyer teaches the motivation for one or more identifying keys for both users in communication in order to secure data transmission in a financial environment (see para 0028, para 0034)
Yoo teaches:
determining a smallest credit limit among the one or more credit lines ((Yoo) in at least para 0143, para 0145 wherein the prior art teaches assigning lowest credit amounts to spreads);
setting an actual trade size of the partially-formed trade to be the lesser of a current trade size of the partially-formed trade and the smallest credit limit ((Yoo) in at least para 0036, para 0039, para 0084-0085, para 0118, para 0145);
Both Djurdj and Yoo are directed toward financial trading. Yoo teaches the motivation when performing a trade with two or multiple partnering parties which multiple counterparties assigning priority of credit spread amounts in order to allocate spread credit to for specified trade allocations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the financial trading process of Djurdj to include assignment of credit lines of Yoo since Yoo teaches the motivation when performing a trade with two or multiple partnering parties which multiple counterparties assigning priority of credit spread amounts in order to allocate spread credit to for specified trade allocations.
Kirby teaches:
setting an actual trade size of the partially-formed trade to be the lesser of a current trade size of the partially-formed trade and the smallest credit limit: ((Kirby) in at least para 0048, para 0065, para 0070) ;
drawing down each of the one or more credit lines by the actual trade size; and ((Kirby) in at least para 0048, para 0065, para 0070); and
transmitting a completed trade message ((Kirby) in at least para 0070-0073, para 0235).
Both Djurdj and Kirby are directed toward investment trading where credit levels for trades are applied. Kirby teaches the motivation of a system process for managing credit limits related to credit risk in order to quantify certainty of clearing and the motivation of transmitting messages to traders on status of trade closing and credit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trading process of Djurdj to include the credit determination and notification of order status as taught by Kirby since Kirby teaches the motivation of a system process for managing credit limits related to credit risk in order to quantify certainty of clearing and the motivation of transmitting messages to traders on status of trade closing and credit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 11,210,380 B2 by Hoyos et al
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695