DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
2. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Using the language in claim(s) 2 to illustrate, the limitations of attempting to fill the first order with an active order; when the first order cannot be filled, searching the plurality of orders in the database and received from the order data integration model (ODIM) for at least one counter order for the security that is expired and unfilled and at least one respective trader among the plurality of traders; querying the at least one respective trader for interest in the security by transmitting an encrypted message over the network connection circuit; facilitating the execution without a negotiation between the first market participant and the second market participant; suppressing evidence that the at least one counter order matches the first order, filling the first order with the at least one respective trader; and suppressing evidence that the first order is filled, wherein suppressing comprises an action selected from the group consisting of: encrypting an information transmission, using onion routing, obscuring a source of an information transmission, obscuring a destination of an information transmission, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention allows for searching a plurality of orders in a database for a counter order that is expired and unfilled after attempting to match an order with an active order, filling the first order with the at least one respective trader; and suppressing evidence that the first order was filled, which is a fundamental economic practice.
The mere nominal recitation of a network connection circuit communicatively coupled with a plurality of computer systems corresponding with a plurality of traders, an order management system (OMS) data integration module (ODIM) interfaced with each of the plurality of computer systems; a database storing a plurality of orders, at least one processor configured to perform a plurality of operations, a first computer system of the plurality of computer systems, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under step 2A, prong one of the Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, prong two of the PEG, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— a network connection circuit communicatively coupled with a plurality of computer systems, an order management system (OMS) data integration module (ODIM) interfaced with each of the plurality of computer systems; a database; at least one processor configured to perform a plurality of operations, a first computer system of the plurality of computer systems. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of receiving a first order, attempting to fill the first order with an active order, when the first order cannot be filled, searching the plurality of orders in the database that are received the ODIM for at least one counter order…; querying the at least one respective trader for interest in the security; facilitating the execution without negotiation…; suppressing evidence…; filling the first order…; suppressing evidence that the first order was filled…; wherein suppressing comprises an action from group consisting of: encrypting information transmission, using onion routing, obscuring a source of an information transmission, obscuring a destination of transmission) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The storing of a plurality of orders that are expired and unfilled and identification of a plurality of respective traders in a database and receiving a first order from a first computer system steps/functions are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of storing data in memory and receiving data from a computer). Storing data in a database and receiving data from a computer are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity –see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claim 12 and hence claim 12 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 12 recites a database, a first computer and a network interface that amounts to generic computer implementation
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the network connection circuit communicatively coupled with plurality of computer systems, an order management system (OMS) data integration module interfaced with each of a plurality of computer systems, a database, at least one processor, and a first computer performing claim functions, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements found to be insignificant extra-solution activities under step 2A prong two, are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. Here, the Specification does not provide any indication that the database storing a plurality of orders that are expired or unfilled are anything other than generic computer components and the Versata Dev. Group, Inc., and OIP court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05[d][ii] indicate that the mere storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). Similarly, the Specification does not provide any indication that the receiving a first order from a first computer system is performed using anything other than a generic computer and the Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, and buySafe court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05[d][ii] indicate that the mere receiving and transmitting of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the storing and retrieving, and receiving a first order from a first computer system limitations are well understood, routine, and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
In addition, under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements of using a processor configured to perform the operation of suppressing evidence, the suppressing comprising an action of using an onion router is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity and the following publications demonstrate the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional element:
Dingledine et al. "Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router;" June 2004.
Feigenbaum, J., Johnson, A., Syverson, P. (2007). “A Model of Onion Routing with Provable Anonymity. In: Dietrich, S., Dhamija, R. (eds) Financial Cryptography and Data Security.” FC 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4886. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77366-5_9.
US Patent No. 6,266,704 (Reed et al.) -The onion routing network allows the connection between the initiator and responder to remain anonymous.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the operation of suppressing evidence, the suppressing comprising using an onion router is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 3.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-11, 13-21, simply help to define the abstract idea.
The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2-21 is/are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that claims 2 and 12 are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 because the claims improve the functioning of the computer. The argument is not convincing.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem).
Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., using the network connection circuit communicatively coupled with plurality of computer systems, an order management system (OMS) data integration module interfaced with each of a plurality of computer systems, a database, at least one processor, and a first computer performing claim functions. The network connection circuit communicatively coupled with plurality of computer systems, an order management system (OMS) data integration module interfaced with each of a plurality of computer systems, a database, at least one processor, and a first computer performing claim functions, are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. Furthermore, the recitation of using an onion routing network when suppressing information is well-understood, routine and conventional as demonstrated in the publications cited in the 35 USC 101 rejection above.
Applicant argues that the instant application recites a specific, non-conventional hardware and software architecture, specifically, the ODIM acts as a security gatekeeper at the edge of the network, extracting data and passing it to a centralized system, including the OMS and ODIM and database, that attempts to secretly execute the order by facilitating execution without negotiations, suppress evidence of a counter order and suppressing evidence that a first order is filled.
The argument is not persuasive because the focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the identified additional elements as tools, but on the abstract ideas that use the additional elements as tools. The use of generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea.
The claims here recite an order management system and data integration module interfaced with computers, i.e., a system having modules. The modules are implemented using generic computer technology, i.e., a network connected to a computer system a database storing orders, and a generic processor configured to perform the claimed operations. The processor, database are implementing the claimed operations in their ordinary capacity.
The steps in the claims (e.g., storing, receiving, attempting, searching, querying, facilitating, suppressing, and filling) involve the normal, basic functions of a computer. “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int' l Trade Comm' n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed Cir. 2010); see also Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1277–78.
Conclusion
4. 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 ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights