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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/2026 has been entered.
This application claims earliest priority from US Patent 10853879 filed 02/19/2016.
Claims 6 & 12 previously canceled.
Claims 1-3, 14, 15, 20-22, 25, 26 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 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to Ex Parte Annakov because the claims allegedly recite a specific technological solution for reducing data lookups and improving computer efficiency; however, the Examiner respectfully disagree.
Annakov is distinguishable since in Annakov, the claims were found to recite a specific technological improvement based on the particular claimed arrangement and operation of the system. Here, the claims do not recite a specific improvement to computer architecture, memory structure, processor operation, or network functionality.
Rather, the claims recite rules for organizing, prioritizing, combining, and allocating messages/orders stored in queues. The claimed “priority inheritance”, “synthetic message” and “out-of-order processing” limitations merely define how transactional data is processed according to business/priority rules.
The claims do not improve the computer itself; they use generic computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea. therefore, Annakov does not overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but instead to a technological improvement in reducing data lookups in separate queues and improving efficiency; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The focus of the claims is organizing and processing transaction/order data abased on value, quantity, and priority. The claims recite:
combining messages
generating a synthetic message,
assigning value/priority/quantity,
storing messages in queues,
increasing quantity,
allocating quantitates based on rules (e.g., during a match event).
These limitations describe rules for managing and prioritizing commercial transaction data (e.g., orders/messages), which falls withing certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions, and also can be characterized as mental processes because the priority and allocation rules could be performed conceptually. Even if not practically performed mentally, the claim recites rules for evaluating and processing information, which constitutes abstract data processing as recognized in Electric Power Group.
The recitation of a processor, memory, and queues does not change the character of the claim because those elements merely implement the abstract data-processing rules on generic computer components.
Accordingly, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the Examiner overgeneralized the claims and ignored specific amended limitations, including priority inheritance and selective out-of-order processing; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection does not ignore the claim limitations. Rather, the limitations are considered together and still recite the abstract idea of organizing, prioritizing, and allocating transaction messages.
The amended limitations, including assigning the synthetic message the lower priority, increasing quantity of the synthetic message in lieu of generating and other synthetic message, and processing the increased quantity before processing the third message, merely further define the abstract priority/allocation rules.
These limitations do not transform the claim into a technological invention. they describe what data is prioritized and when it is processed, not a technical improvement to how the computer processor, memory, or queues operate.
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims still recite a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims allegedly reduce data lookups, reduce memory access cycles, and improve computer efficiency; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The alleged improvement is not to the computer itself, but to the abstract process of deciding which message/order data to process first. The claims do not recite a new memory architecture, a new database structure, a new queue structure, a new processor operation, or a specific technical mechanism for improving memory access. The claims do not change how data is stored, retrieved, or accessed at a technical level, but instead change only the order and conditions under which data is processed.
Instead, the claims recite the desired result of reducing data lookups by changing the order and grouping of data processing. Merely reducing the number of operations through abstract prioritization and allocation rules does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements remain generic:
an order processing processor;
non-transitory memory;
separate queues.
These components perform their ordinary functions of storing, receiving, and processing data. The claim merely applies the abstract idea using those generic computer components.
The “priority inheritance” and “out-of-order processing” features are rules governing data processing, not improvements to computer technology.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to eligible claims in Finjan and DDR Holdings; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Finjan is distinguishable because the claims here do not recite a new security profile, new data structure, or improved computer security mechanism. The present claims instead recite prioritizing and allocating transactional message data.
DDR Holdings is also distinguishable because the claims here do not solve a problem specifically arising in computer networks or the internet. The claims address prioritization and allocation of order/message data, which is a commercial data-processing problem implemented on generic computer components.
Thus, Applicant’s reliance on these cases is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the amended limitations are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, and because the Examiner has not satisfied Berkheimer; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional elements, including the processor, memory, and queues, are recited generically and perform conventional computer functions: storing data, receiving data, processing data, and retrieving data.
The claimed priority rules, quantity aggregation, priority inheritance, and conditional allocation are also routine data-processing concepts. They amount to organizing and processing data according to rules.
The Specifications describe the processor, memory and queues functionally and at a high-level of generality, without disclosing any specialized or unconventional implementation, thereby supporting that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Applicant argues that even if the individual elements are conventional, the ordered combination provides an inventive concept; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The ordered combination merely applies the abstract idea using generic computing components. Combining messages, assigning priorities, increasing quantities, and allocating quantities based on rules are part of the abstract idea itself.
The claim does not add any additional technical feature that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more.
For the above reasoning, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The claims remain directed to the abstract idea of organizing, prioritizing, and allocating transactional message/order data. The additional computer elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. The amendments merely refine the abstract idea and do not add alter the eligibility analysis.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC § 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:
combining a first message associated with a first object and a second message associated with a second object;
generating based on the combination of the first and second message, a synthetic message associated with a third object;
associating the synthetic message with a value, a first processing priority, and a quantity based on the first and second messages;
storing the synthetic message in a third queue;
receiving and storing a third message associated with the synthetic message;
receiving and storing a fourth message;
increasing the quantity of the synthetic message based on the quantity associated with the fourth message; and
automatically allocating the increased quantity of the synthetic message for matching during a match event.
The newly added limitations including “wherein the processing priority of the synthetic message is equivalent to the lower of the priorities of the first and second messages”, “wherein the increased quantity of the synthetic message inherits the processing priority of the synthetic message”, and “processing the increased quantity for matching before processing the third message” merely further define the prioritization and allocation rules associated with the abstract idea and do not change the fundamental character of the claim.
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;
separate queues/queue data structures;
computer executable instructions;
receiving and storing messages in queues;
accessing data associated with messages stored in queues; and
processing quantities for matching during a match event.
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 combining, 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.
The amended limitations directed to selecting a lower processing priority, inheriting priority, and reallocating quantities prior to accessing certain queues represent data manipulation rules and ordering logic, which constitute mental processes or mathematical relationships that could be performed conceptually and do not improve the functioning of the computer itself.
The recited plurality of separate queues structured such that messages are stored in sequence based on processing priority merely organizes and stores data according to priority rules and does not improve queue architecture, database technology, or computer functionality itself. Likewise, accessing the first or second queues and processing quantities before other messages merely implement ordering and prioritization logic associated with the abstract idea.
Further, the alleged reduction in data lookups (“reducing a number of data lookups required”) is merely a result of the abstract idea and does not reflect a specific technological improvement to computer functionality, but rather an optimization of the abstract business logic.
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 additional elements (processor, non-transitory memory, queues, queue access operations, and computer executable instructions) are well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and operations used for generic data processing and storage.
The amended features relating to priority selection, quantity inheritance, and pre-processing allocation represent routine data processing techniques (e.g., prioritization rules and aggregation), which are well-known in the field of transaction processing and queue management.
The ordered combination of elements likewise does not amount to significantly more, as it merely applies conventional computing operations to implement the abstract idea.
Further, the ordered combination of the additional elements merely automates the abstract idea prioritization and allocation rules using conventional computer operations and 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 for reducing data lookups within queues, which constitutes a commercial/business interaction and/or mental process implemented using generic computer components.
Even when considering the amendments (priority inheritance, selective allocation before processing, and quantity updates), the claims merely refine the abstract idea and do not integrate it 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
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
Prosecution Insights