DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 2-15 drawn to a system and method for executing an order management system, classified in class G06Q 40/04.
II. Claim 16-17 drawn to a system for preventing unauthorized disclosure of order data, classified in class H04L 9/32.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as: “ for each received order generate (i) encrypted order data…(ii) non-sensitive matching data associated with the encrypted order data…; store encrypted order data…; preliminarily identify, based on the non-sensitive matching data…; cause display of a non-sensitive indication…; store decryption key or protocol…; determine whether a second participant of the plurality of participants is the predetermined type of entity…; receive…encrypted order…; perform locally…not at any intermediate network node…; determine after decrypting…; notifying the second participant…; transmit a response matching…” See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Claims 2-15 are elected due to its similarity to the prior examined claims. Accordingly, claims 16-17are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Applicant is respectfully requested to cancel the non-elected claims in response to this office action.
Status of claims
Claims 2-15 have been examined.
Claim 1 has been canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 16-17 are non-elected claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is of the opinion that claims do not recite one of the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1. Further, the claims, taken as a whole, cannot be so characterized. The matching of encrypted order data to queries using entity-type-specific cryptographic keys or protocols, and the performance of decryption at a specific remote network node as a precondition to order execution, are not steps that could be performed mentally or without the specific technical architecture recited. The encryption and decryption operations are not incidental to the claimed method; rather, they are integral to the inventive solution by enabling order matching in a manner that prevents the unauthorized disclosure and potential misuse of sensitive order information.
The claims here do not recite encryption as a formula, equation, or abstract mathematical operation. Claims are analogous to BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Applicant further submits that the claims also recite significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite performing a financial trade transaction which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “collecting orders…; identifying and displaying the orders…; determining (a) whether the orders…, (b) whether a second participant…, and (c) whether based on the market information…; wherein if the price satisfy the criteria…: notify…; and execute the order…; and transmitting a response matching the orders…of the second participant.” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for collecting orders made available by a plurality of participants; identifying and displaying orders that satisfy preset criteria specified by stored rules, where the criteria define substitutability of financial instruments for other financial instruments and increase a match rate between bids and offers; determining whether orders from a first participant satisfy the preset criteria; determining whether a second participant is a predefined type of entity accepted in executing the orders; determining whether prices of the financial instruments satisfy the preset criteria; and where those conditions are met, notifying the second participant, initiating execution of the orders, and transmitting a response matching orders representing the second participant’s trading interests which is a process that deals with fundamental economic principles and commercial interactions, and more specifically involves performing a financial trade transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
Applicant argues that the claims cannot be so characterized because the recited encryption and decryption cannot be performed mentally or without the specific technical architecture recited. This argument is not persuasive because it applies the wrong inquiry at Prong 1. The Prong 1 analysis ask whether the claim, considered as a whole, recites a judicial exception, it does not require that every individual limitation be capable of mental performance before the claim can be said to recite an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106). A claim reciting an abstract idea does not escape that categorization merely because it also recites a generic technological limitation; the significant of that technological limitation is properly evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, not used to negate the Prong 1 determination. Here, apart from the encrypting/decrypting limitation, the remaining steps such as collecting orders, comparing them to stored criteria, determining counterparty eligibility and matching and executing trades describe the abstract economic practice itself. The claim as a whole is therefore properly characterized as directed to an abstract idea, specifically performing a financial trade transaction.
Further, Applicant argued that “The matching of encrypted order data to queries using entity-type-specific cryptographic keys or protocols, and the performance of decryption at a specific remote network node as a precondition to order execution, are not steps that could be performed mentally or without the specific technical architecture recited.” However, claim does not recite the way applicant is arguing. Claims recites collecting orders made available by a plurality of participants; identifying and displaying orders that satisfy preset criteria specified by stored rules, where the criteria define substitutability of financial instruments for other financial instruments and increase a match rate between bids and offers; determining whether orders from a first participant satisfy the preset criteria; determining whether a second participant is a predefined type of entity accepted in executing the orders; determining whether prices of the financial instruments satisfy the preset criteria; and where those conditions are met, notifying the second participant, initiating execution of the orders, and transmitting a response matching orders representing the second participant’s trading interests.
Applicant argues that the claimed encryption/decryption architecture improves network security, efficiency, and privacy in a networked trading platform “operating in an unconventional fashion”. However, the claim does not recite how the encryption or decryption is technically carried out, nor any specific improved cryptographic technique, key generation scheme, or data structure. It recites only the result of encryption, order data “comprising encrypted data” and the result of decryption, “decrypting or processing the encrypted data at the remote device of the second participant using a key or protocol associated with the predetermined type of entity”, which is part of the abstract idea performing a financial trade transaction.
With respect to that encryption is not a mathematical concept because claim does not recite mathematical formula or equations and mathematical calculation. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The encryption is part of mathematical process that scrambles readable data into unreadable text using algorithms and numerical keys. Further, even for argument sake encryption is not part of mathematical process, the encryption also fall under mental processor where user can perform with pen and paper.
With respect to “FairWarning”, Applicant is correct that FairWarning did not involve an encryption limitation. However, FairWarning was cited not for a factual parallel to encryption specifically, but for a combination of abstract ideas is still an abstract idea.
Claims are not similar to BASCOM (BASCOM Global Internet Service inc. v. ATT&T Mobility LLC.) because BASCOM is clearly not applicable to the instant claims as in BASCOM, the inventive concept identified was the unconventional location of a claimed filtering tool, installing individualized filtering at a remote ISP server, rather than at the end user’s computer or a central server, which allowed a single tool to be customized for individual users at a location where such customization was not conventionally performed. That improvement was to the filtering technology’s architecture itself. Here, by contrast, decryption occurring “at the remote device of the second participant” using that participant’s own associated key is not an unconventional network arrangement. It is the ordinary and expected location of decryption for any system in which data is encrypted for a specific intended recipient: the recipient decrypts the data at their own device using their own credentials. Nothing in the claim departs from this conventional topology, and Applicant has not identified what, if anything, about the location or manner of decryption departs from how encrypted communications are conventionally implemented between a sender and an intended recipient. Nor does gating execution on entity-type-specific keys, in coordination with the substitutability rules, transform this into a technical improvement. Conditioning access to information or conditioning performance of a subsequent step on a credential check is itself a well-known technique for restricting access, applied here to the abstract idea of performing a financial trade transaction. Accordingly, the claim as a whole applied the judicial exception using generic technological components (i.e. encryption, decryption, remote devices, credential-based access) in their conventional roles, rather than integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of performing a trade transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements (i.e. processor, memory and server) does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 2-15 have been examined.
Claim 1 has been canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 16-17 are non-elected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 2-14 are directed to a system, claim 15 is directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite performing a financial trade transaction which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “collecting orders…; identifying and displaying the orders…; determining (a) whether the orders…, (b) whether a second participant…, and (c) whether based on the market information…; wherein if the price satisfy the criteria…: notify…; and execute the order…; and a response matching the orders…of the second participant” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for collecting and displaying orders, determine an order satisfy criteria of rule, determining a second participant registered participant, determining price of the financial instruments satisfied the criteria, notify the participant if price satisfies criteria and second participant is registered participant, and execute a trade transaction, which is a process that deals with fundamental economic principles and commercial interactions, and more specifically involves performing a financial trade transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
Additionally, the claims are directed toward mathematical operations (i.e., encryption) which is the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106). Further, encryption/decryption is a mental processor where user can perform with pen and paper. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case organizing human activity and a mathematical concept/mental process, is still an abstract idea. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as, processor, memory and server, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the processor, memory and server from claims perform the steps or functions of collecting and displaying orders, determine an order satisfy criteria of rule, determining a second participant registered participant, determining price of the financial instruments satisfied the criteria, notify the participant if price satisfies criteria and second participant is registered participant, and execute a trade transaction. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of processor, memory and server to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of performing a financial trade transaction. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the processor, memory, and server perform the steps or functions of collecting and displaying orders, determine an order satisfy criteria of rule, determining a second participant registered participant, determining price of the financial instruments satisfied the criteria, notify the participant if price satisfies criteria and second participant is registered participant, and execute a trade transaction. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of performing a trade transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea of performing a financial trade transaction. Specifically, claims 3, 5-10 and 12 describing data which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 11 reciting specifying that the matching orders should be executed and providing a rating which is also part of the abstract idea of performing a financial trade transaction. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights