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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to remarks received 08/06/2026.
This application claims earliest priority from US Patent 10853879 filed 02/19/2016.
Claims 6 & 12 previously canceled.
Claims 1, 20 and 29 have been amended.
Claims 1, 20 & 29 being independent claims and claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-19 and 21-28 being dependent claims.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 & 13-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the claims are directed to a specific technological process for reducing data lookups. Applicant further argues that the Examiner has overgeneralized the claims and has not given proper consideration to the specific claimed limitations, including increasing the quantity of the first synthetic message based on the quantity of the fourth message in lieu of generating and storing a second synthetic message, maintaining the processing priority of the first synthetic message, and processing the increased quantity prior to the third message. Applicant further relies on Ex parte Annakov and Contour and argues that the claims should not be characterized at a high level of generality.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection considers the limitations as a whole and does not disregard the specific manner in which the claimed messages are stored, generated, prioritized, increased, allocated and processed. The claimed limitations further define rules governing the organization, prioritization, and allocation of transaction message/order data, including the value, quantity, and processing priority associated with such messages and the order in which the messages or quantities thereof are processed. Thus, the specific limitations relied upon by Applicant further define the identified commercial interaction rather than removing the claim from the identified certain method of organizing human activity. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claimed process reduces data lookups and memory access operations and thereby improves computer efficiency. Applicant argues that this improvement results from increasing the quantity of the first synthetic message based on the quantity of the fourth message in lieu of generating and storing a second synthetic message in the third queue, maintaining the processing priority of the first synthetic message, and processing the increased quantity prior to the third message. Applicant further argues that the claimed process provides a specific technological solution to a technological problem and relies on the Specification’s discussion of reducing data lookups, as well as Ex part Annakov, Contour, Enfish, Finjan, and DDR Holdings.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The asserted reduction in data lookups results from the claimed rules governing the generation, storage, prioritization, quantity, allocation, and processing of the transactional messages, rather than from an improvement to the operation of the processor, memory, queues, or data access operation itself. In particular, the claims increase the quantity of the first synthetic message based on the quantity of the fourth message in lieu of generating and storing a second synthetic message, maintain the processing priority of the first synthetic message, and cause the increased quantity derived from the fourth message to be processed prior to the third message. These limitations change which transactional message data is stored and the order in which quantities associated with the messages are processed, but do not recite a technological improvement to the manner in which the processor performs processing, the memory stores data, or the queues are accessed. Thus, although the claims recite the particular rules by which the asserted reduction in data lookups is achieved, the recited manner of achieving that result remains based on the organization, prioritization, quantity, and allocation of the transactional message data, rather than a change to the operation of the computer components themselves.
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s cited portions of the Specification describing reduced data lookups and improved efficiency. However, the claimed reduction in data lookups is a result of the particular organization, prioritization, and allocation of the transactional message data. The claims do not recite a new data access mechanism or other technological mechanism by which the underlying computer operation itself is improved. Accordingly, considering the additional elements individually and in combination with the claim as whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed limitations, individually and as ordered combination, provide an inventive concept. Applicant argues that the claimed process is not well-understood, routine, or conventional because it increases the quantity of the first synthetic message based on the quantity of the fourth message in Lieu of generating and storing a second synthetic message, maintains the processing priority of the first synthetic message, and process the increases quantity prior to the third message. Applicant further argues that the Examiner has not provided the factual support required under Berkheimer to establish that the claimed limitations or their ordered combination are well-understood, routine and conventional.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. the limitations relied upon by Applicant as providing the alleged inventive concept, including increasing the quantity of the first synthetic message in lieu of generating and storing a second synthetic message, maintaining the processing priority of the first synthetic message, and processing the increased quantity prior to the third message, are part of the rules governing the organization, prioritization, and allocation of the transactional message/order data that form the identified abstract idea. The alleged novelty or unconventionality of the abstract idea itself does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional computer elements, including the order processing processor, non-transitory memory, and plurality of queues, implement the recited transactional message processing. considered individually and as an ordered combination with the recited judicial exception, these additional elements do not provide a separate technological mechanism that improves the operation of the processor, memory, or queues. Rather, the computer elements are used to carry out the claimed rules governing the transactional message/order data.
For the above reasoning, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
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 1-5, 7-11 & 13-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a process and claim 20 is directed to a system; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for conducting business relations (e.g., managing and prioritizing messages/orders), which is a commercial interaction, and thus falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea including:
storing the plurality of queues, each queue configured to store messages in a sequence based on processing priority
storing a first message associated with a first object in a first queue and a second message associated with a second object in a second queue of the plurality of queues, wherein each of the first and second messages is associated with a value, processing priority, and quantity, and wherein the processing priority of one of the first and second messages is lower than the other;
generating based on a combination of the first and second message, a first synthetic message linked therewith and associated with a third object that is based on a combination of the first and second objects;
associating the first synthetic message with a value, a first processing priority, and a quantity based on the first and second messages, wherein the processing priority of the first synthetic message is equivalent to the lower of the processing priorities of the first and second messages;
storing the synthetic message in a third queue of the plurality of queues;
receiving and storing a third message associated with the synthetic message;
receiving and storing a fourth message;
increasing, based on receipt of the fourth message and in lieu of generated and storing a second synthetic message in a third queue, the quantity of the first synthetic message based on the quantity of the fourth message, while the processing priority of the first synthetic message remaining unchanged; and
allocating, automatically, upon an occurrence of a match event triggered by an aggressing order for the third object, the increased quantity of the synthetic message prior to any of the quantity of the third message, including performing a data lookup to access the one of the first or second queues from which the increased quantity derived from the fourth message originated and processing increased quantity for matching before processing the third message.
The amended limitations, including storing the plurality of queues in non-transitory memory and configuring the queues to store messages in a sequence based on processing priority; increasing the quantity of the first synthetic message based on receipt of the fourth message and in lieu of generating and storing a second synthetic message; maintaining the processing priority of the first synthetic message unchanged; and performing a data lookup to access the queue from which the increased quantity originated and processing the increased quantity before the third message, further define the rules governing the storage, organization, prioritization, and allocation of the recited massage/order data. These limitations further refine how the transactional message/order data is organized and processed according to specified priority and allocation rules and do not change the fundamental character of the recited abstract idea..
Thus, the claims as a whole recites an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements recited beyond the abstract idea include:
an order processing processor;
a non-transitory memory configured to store the plurality of separate queues;
a plurality of queues configured to store messages in a sequence based on processing priority;
computer executable instructions;
receiving and storing messages in queues;
accessing data associated with messages stored in queues;
processing quantities for matching during a match event;
performing a data lookup to access one of the first or second queues; and
processing the increased quantity before processing the third message.
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and merely use generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. For example, the order processing processor is recited as a generic processor performing generic data processing functions including generating, associating, storing, receiving, increasing, prioritizing, and allocating data. The non-transitory memory and queues merely store and organize data associated with messages and do not improve memory functionality, queue architecture, or computer technology itself. Although the amended claim further specifies the storage and access of message data within the plurality of queues, the claim does not recite an improvement to the operation of the processor, memory, or queue architecture itself. Rather, the recited computer components carry out the claimed rules governing which message data is stored, prioritized, accessed, and processed.
The amended limitations directed to increasing the quantity of the first synthetic message in lieu of generating and storing a second synthetic message, maintaining the processing priority of the first synthetic message unchanged, accessing the queue from which the increased quantity originated, and processing the increased quantity before the third message define particular rules governing the organization, prioritization, storage, access, and processing of the recited transactional message/order data. These limitations further specify implementation of the recited abstract idea rather than improve the underlying operation of the processor, memory, or queue architecture.
The recited plurality of queues stored in non-transitory memory and configured such that messages are stored in sequence based on processing priority organizes and stores the transactional message/order data according to claimed priority rules. Likewise, performing a data lookup to access the first or second queues from which the increased quantity originated and processing that quantities before the third message specifies which stored message/order data is processed. These limitations therefore further implement the recited prioritization and allocation rules rather than recite an improvement to the underlying computer, memory, or queue technology.
The amended claim further recites that the foregoing processing improves functioning of the computer by reducing a number of messages and corresponding data lookups required to fill the aggressing order via avoidance of generation of the second synthetic message. However, the claimed reduction in messages and corresponding data lookups results from the recited rule of increasing the quantity of the existing first synthetic message in lieu of generating and storing a second synthetic message. Thus, the asserted reduction results from changing which transaction message/order data is generated, stored, accessed, and processed according to the claimed prioritization and allocation rules, rather than from an improvement to the operation of the processor, memory, queue architecture, data-lookup mechanism, or other computer technology itself. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the amended limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The recited order processing processor, non-transitory memory, and computer-executable instructions, considered apart from the judicial exception, constitute generic computer components performing their ordinary data processing and storage functions and do not individually provide an inventive concept.
The amended limitations requiring increasing the quantity of the first synthetic message in lieu of generating and storing a second synthetic message, maintaining the processing priority of the first synthetic message unchanged, accessing the queue from which the increased quantity originated, and processing the increased quantity before the third message further specify the prioritization, allocation, and processing rules that form part of the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, these limitations do not provide an inventive concept separate from the abstract idea.
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements likewise do not amount to significantly more. the processor, memory, and plurality of queues provide the computer environment in which the recited message prioritization and allocation rules are carried out, while the amended limitations further define the storage, access, prioritization, and processing of the transactional message/order data. The ordered combination therefore does not provide an inventive concept distinct from the judicial exception.
Further, considering the claim as a whole, including avoidance of generating and storing the second synthetic message and the resulting reduction in messages and corresponding data lookups, the claim does not recite a technological mechanism that improves the operation of the processor, memory, queue architecture, or data-lookup technology itself. Rather, the asserted efficiency results from the claimed rules governing which message/order data is generated, maintained, accessed, prioritized, and processed. Therefore, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims do not include meaningful limitations that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application.
The claims are directed to managing message prioritization, quantity allocation, and queue access operations associated with transactional/order data, including selectively avoiding generation of an additional synthetic message and determining the order in which message quantities are processed. The recited computer components implement these information processing and allocation rules and do not themselves provide an improvement to computer functionality or another technology or technical field.
Even when considering the amendments including the priority-ordered plurality of queues, avoidance of generating and storing the second synthetic message, maintenance of the first synthetic message’s processing priority, selective queue access, processing of the increased quantity before the third message, and the resulting reduction in messages and corresponding data lookups, the claims further refine the manner in which the transactional message/order information is organized and processed. The amendments do not recite an improvement ot the underlying processor, memory, queue architecture, or data-lookup technology and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole an in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 21-24 merely further define how priorities or quantities are determined, inherited, or compared using timestamps, sequence numbers, lower priorities, or relative values, which constitute additional prioritization rules and data relationships associated with the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7, 10, 11, 25, 27, and 28 merely limit the abstract idea to financial instruments, order books, synthetic messages, or associated actions, which constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and/or field-of-use limitations.
Dependent claims 8, 9, 13-19, and 26 merely add additional queue access, transaction access, quantity adjustment, message removal, data storage relationships and prioritization operations associated with the abstract idea and do not improve computer functionality or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-11 & 13-29 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
