DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 the Application
Claims 1-21 have been examined in the application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 10, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
• Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein the one or more replacement swaps comprise at least two replacement swaps when the computer system determines that a data value precision of the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio exceeds a data value precision of at least one component of the computer system which prevents the computer system from calculating less than the at least two replacement swaps having a combined risk value equivalent to the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio" in paragraph 2. The claim lacks written description support because there is no written description of this limitation in the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.03(I). In fact, there is no teaching of the following limitations anywhere in the disclosure: "wherein the one or more replacement swaps comprise at least two replacement swaps when the computer system determines that a data value precision of the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio exceeds a data value precision of at least one component of the computer system which prevents the computer system from calculating less than the at least two replacement swaps having a combined risk value equivalent to the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio".
• Claim 9 recites the limitation "wherein the one or more replacement swaps comprise at least two replacement swaps when the computer system determines that a data value precision of the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio exceeds a data value precision of at least one component of the computer system which prevents the computer system from calculating less than the at least two replacement swaps having a combined risk value equivalent to the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio" in paragraph 2. The claim lacks written description support because there is no written description of this limitation in the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.03(I). In fact, there is no teaching of the following limitations anywhere in the disclosure: "wherein the one or more replacement swaps comprise at least two replacement swaps when the computer system determines that a data value precision of the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio exceeds a data value precision of at least one component of the computer system which prevents the computer system from calculating less than the at least two replacement swaps having a combined risk value equivalent to the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio".
• Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein the one or more replacement swaps comprise at least two replacement swaps when the computer system determines that a data value precision of the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio exceeds a data value precision of at least one component of the computer system which prevents the computer system from calculating less than the at least two replacement swaps having a combined risk value equivalent to the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio" in paragraph 2. The claim lacks written description support because there is no written description of this limitation in the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.03(I). In fact, there is no teaching of the following limitations anywhere in the disclosure: "wherein the one or more replacement swaps comprise at least two replacement swaps when the computer system determines that a data value precision of the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio exceeds a data value precision of at least one component of the computer system which prevents the computer system from calculating less than the at least two replacement swaps having a combined risk value equivalent to the sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio".
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
In the following Claim Rejections, the Office has omitted to reiterate the Applicant's use of italics, subscripting, and superscripting; however, the Applicant’s original features nonetheless still persist in the pending claims. Similarly in the following Claim Rejections for convenience, the mathematical formulas in Claims 4, Claim 11, and Claim 18 are referred to as “Equation 4a”, “Equation 4B”, and “Equation 4C”; and the mathematical formula in Claim 7, Claim 14, and Claim 21 is referred to as "Equation 7". Citations to the prior claims containing those formulas below are summarized by coarse translations to text of those mathematical formulae which are disclosed in the prior claims within the prior claims as indicated below.
1-st Double Patenting Category: Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated by claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,847,702 B2 to Boberski; David Andrew et al., (hereinafter "BOBERSKI-Claims") since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
Claim 1, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 1 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 1 is an independent claim. BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 1 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 1, a method comprising: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[a] method comprising:" Claim 1)
• 1 ¶ 2 • performing, automatically by a computer system when the data size of data corresponding to a portfolio comprising a plurality of interest rate swaps, each being characterized by a risk value, exceeds a defined data storage capacity of a non-transitory memory device in which the data is stored: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "accessing, in a non-transitory memory device by a computer system, data corresponding to a portfolio comprising a plurality of interest rate swaps, each being characterized by a risk value; comparing, by the computer system, a data size of the portfolio to a defined data storage capacity of the non-transitory memory device; performing, automatically by the computer system when the data size of the portfolio exceeds the defined data storage capacity:" Claim 1)
• 1 ¶ 3 • calculating, by the computer system, one or more replacement swaps having a combined risk value equivalent to a sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "calculating, by the computer system, a compressed swap having a risk value equivalent to a sum of the risk values of each of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio;" Claim 1)
• 1 ¶ 4 • forming, by the computer system, replacement data corresponding to a replacement portfolio comprising the one or more replacement swaps in place of the subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio; and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "storing, by the computer system, second data comprising a compressed portfolio comprising the compressed swap by replacing the data comprising the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device with the second data to minimize a data storage requirement of the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device" Claims 1, 8, 15)
• 1 ¶ 5 • replacing, by the computer system, the data comprising the portfolio with the replacement data in the non-transitory memory device to reduce a data storage requirement of the portfolio therein. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "storing, by the computer system, second data comprising a compressed portfolio comprising the compressed swap by replacing the data comprising the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device with the second data to minimize a data storage requirement of the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device" Claims 1, 8, 15)
Claim 3, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 3 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 3 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 3 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 3, the method of claim 1, further comprising: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising:" Claims 2, 6)
• 3 ¶ 2 • determining, by the computer system, a performance bond requirement attributable to the plurality of interest rate swaps; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining, by the computer system, a performance bond requirement attributable to the plurality of interest rate swaps;" Claim 2)
• 3 ¶ 3 • comparing, by the computer system, the performance bond requirement to account data associated with a holder of the portfolio; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "comparing, by the computer system, the performance bond requirement to account data associated with a holder of the portfolio;" Claim 2)
• 3 ¶ 4 • performing, by the computer system, one or more additional actions based on the comparing comprising at least one of (i) storing data regarding satisfaction of the performance bond requirement, and (ii) transmitting a communication regarding the performance bond requirement. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses L*013)
Claim 4, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 4 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 4 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 4 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 4, the method of claim 1, wherein Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he method of claim 1, wherein" Claims 3, 5)
• 4 ¶ 2 • calculating, for each of the one or more replacement swaps, a replacement swap fixed rate value xB, a replacement swap notional value NB, and a replacement swap floating rate spread value c according to Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "calculating, for the compressed swap, a compressed swap fixed rate value x.sub.B, a compressed swap notional value N.sub.B, and a compressed swap floating rate spread value c according to" Claims 3, 10, 17)
• 4 ¶ 3 • Equation 4A Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[Equation 4A]" Claims 3, 10, 17)
• 4 ¶ 4 • Equation 4B Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[Equation 4B]" Claims 3, 10, 17)
• 4 ¶ 5 • Equation 4C Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[Equation 4C]" Claims 3, 10, 17)
• 4 ¶ 6 • xj is a fixed rate value for the jth interest rate swap, wherein m is the number of interest rate swaps in the plurality of interest rate swaps, N is a notional value of the j'h interest rate swap, G is the number of floating rate payment periods in the common tenor, fg is a floating rate value corresponding to the g'h floating rate payment period, dfg is a floating rate discount factor corresponding to the g'h floating rate payment period, and dtg is a duration of the g'h floating rate payment period. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "x.sub.j is a fixed rate value for the j.sup.th interest rate swap, wherein m is the number of interest rate swaps in the portfolio of interest rate swaps, N.sub.j is a notional value of the j.sup.th interest rate swap, G is the number of floating rate payment periods in the common tenor, f.sub.g is a floating rate value corresponding to the g.sup.th floating rate payment period, df.sub.g is a floating rate discount factor corresponding to the g.sup.th floating rate payment period, and dt.sub.g is a duration of the g.sup.th floating rate payment period" Claims 3, 10, 17)
Claim 5, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 5 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 5 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 5 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 5, the method of claim 1, wherein Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he method of claim 1, wherein" Claims 3, 5)
• 5 ¶ 2 • a DVO1 value for the one or more replacement swaps is the same as a sum of DVO1 values for the plurality of interest rate swaps, and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "a DV01 value for the compressed swap is the same as a sum of DV01 values for the interest rate swaps, and" Claims 5, 12, 19)
• 5 ¶ 3 • a CVO1 value for the one or more replacement swaps is the same as a sum of CVO1 values for the plurality of interest rate swaps. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "a CV01 value for the compressed swap is the same as a sum of CV01 values for the interest rate swaps" Claims 5, 12, 19)
Claim 6, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 6 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 6 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 1, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 6 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 6, the method of claim 1, further comprising: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising:" Claims 2, 6)
• 6 ¶ 2 • determining a performance bond requirement of the plurality of interest rate swaps based on first and second disaggregated swaps, Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining a performance bond requirement of the plurality of interest rate swaps based on first and second disaggregated swaps," Claims 6, 13)
• 6 ¶ 3 • the first disaggregated swap comprises a replacement swap fixed rate value xB, a first disaggregated swap notional value NB1, and a first disaggregated swap spread value ci, and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "the first disaggregated swap comprises a compressed swap fixed rate value x.sub.B, a first disaggregated swap notional value N.sub.B1, and a first disaggregated swap spread value c.sub.1, and" Claims 6, 13, 20)
• 6 ¶ 4 • the second disaggregated swap comprises the replacement swap fixed rate value xB, a second disaggregated swap notional value NB2, and a second disaggregated swap spread value c2, and further comprising: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "the second disaggregated swap comprises the compressed swap fixed rate value x.sub.B, a second disaggregated swap notional value N.sub.B2, and a second disaggregated swap spread value c.sub.2, and further comprising:" Claim 6)
• 6 ¶ 5 • determining a required precision for the floating rate spread value c; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining a required precision for the floating rate spread value c;" Claims 6, 13)
• 6 ¶ 6 • determining the required precision is greater than an available precision; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining the required precision is greater than an available precision;" Claims 6, 13)
• 6 ¶ 7 • based on the determining that the required precision is greater than an available precision, selecting a cl value greater than the c value and a c2 value less than the c value; and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "based on the determining that the required precision is greater than an available precision, selecting a c.sub.1 value greater than the c value and a c.sub.2 value less than the c value; and" Claim 6)
• 6 ¶ 8 • determining NBl and NB2 values such NBl(x)cl + NB2(x)c2=NB(x)C and such that NBl + NB2=NB. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining N.sub.B1 and N.sub.B2 values such N.sub.B1*c.sub.1+N.sub.B2*c.sub.2=N.sub.B*c and such that N.sub.B1+N.sub.B2=N.sub.B" Claims 6, 13, 20)
Claim 7, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 7 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 7 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 6, which is also a dependent claim, and thus the instant claim indirectly depends upon claim 1, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claims 6 and 1, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 7 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 7, the method of claim 6, wherein: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he method of claim 6, wherein:" Claim 7)
• 7 ¶ 2 • determining the required precision comprises determining the required precision according to Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining the required precision comprises determining the required precision according to" Claims 7, 14, 21)
• 7 ¶ 3 • Equation 7 Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[Equation 7]" Claims 7, 14, 21)
• 7 ¶ 4 • D is the required precision, E is a constant chosen to limit a difference between a present value of the one or more replacement swaps and combined present values of the plurality of interest rate swaps, m is the number of interest rate swaps in the plurality of interest rate swaps, xj is a fixed rate value for the jth interest rate swap, N is a notional value of the jth interest rate swap, G is the number of floating rate payment periods in the common tenor, fg is a floating rate value corresponding to the g' floating rate payment period, dfg is a floating rate discount factor corresponding to the g' floating rate payment period, and dtg is a duration of the g' floating rate payment period. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[d] is the required precision, E is a constant chosen to limit a difference between a present value of the compressed swap and combined present values of the plurality of interest rate swaps, m is the number of interest rate swaps in the portfolio of interest rate swaps, x.sub.j is a fixed rate value for the j.sup.th interest rate swap, N.sub.j is a notional value of the j.sup.th interest rate swap, G is the number of floating rate payment periods in the common tenor, f.sub.g is a floating rate value corresponding to the g.sup.th floating rate payment period, df.sub.g is a floating rate discount factor corresponding to the g.sup.th floating rate payment period, and dt.sub.g is a duration of the g.sup.th floating rate payment period" Claims 7, 14, 21)
Claim 8, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 8 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 8 is an independent claim. BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 8 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 8, a non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer executable instructions that, when executed, cause a computer system to perform operations that include: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[a] non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer executable instructions that, when executed, cause a computer system to perform operations that include:" Claim 8)
• 8 ¶ 2 • performing, automatically by a computer system when the data size of data corresponding to a portfolio comprising a plurality of interest rate swaps, each being characterized by a risk value, exceeds a defined data storage capacity of a non-transitory memory device in which the data is stored: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "accessing, in a non-transitory memory device by a computer system, data corresponding to a portfolio comprising a plurality of interest rate swaps, each being characterized by a risk value; comparing, by the computer system, a data size of the portfolio to a defined data storage capacity of the non-transitory memory device; performing, automatically by the computer system when the data size of the portfolio exceeds the defined data storage capacity:" Claim 1)
• 8 ¶ 3 • calculating, by the computer system, one or more replacement swaps having a combined risk value equivalent to a sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "calculating, by the computer system, a compressed swap having a risk value equivalent to a sum of the risk values of each of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio;" Claim 1)
• 8 ¶ 4 • forming, by the computer system, replacement data corresponding to a replacement portfolio comprising the one or more replacement swaps in place of the subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio; and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "storing, by the computer system, second data comprising a compressed portfolio comprising the compressed swap by replacing the data comprising the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device with the second data to minimize a data storage requirement of the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device" Claims 1, 8, 15)
• 8 ¶ 5 • replacing, by the computer system, the data comprising the portfolio with the replacement data in the non-transitory memory device to reduce a data storage requirement of the portfolio therein. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "storing, by the computer system, second data comprising a compressed portfolio comprising the compressed swap by replacing the data comprising the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device with the second data to minimize a data storage requirement of the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device" Claims 1, 8, 15)
Claim 10, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 10 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 10 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 8, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 8, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 10 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 10, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to perform operations that include: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to perform operations that include:" Claims 9-10, 13)
• 10 ¶ 2 • determining, based at least in part on the combined risk value of the one or more replacement swaps, a performance bond requirement attributable to the plurality of interest rate swaps; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining, based at least in part on the compressed swap parameters, a performance bond requirement attributable to the interest rate swaps;" Claims 9, 16)
• 10 ¶ 3 • comparing the performance bond requirement to account data associated with a holder of the portfolio; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "comparing the performance bond requirement to account data associated with a holder of the portfolio;" Claims 9, 16)
• 10 ¶ 4 • performing one or more additional actions based on the comparing comprising at least one of (i) storing data regarding satisfaction of the performance bond requirement, and (ii) transmitting a communication regarding the performance bond requirement. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "performing one or more additional actions based on the comparing comprising at least one of (i) storing data regarding satisfaction of the performance bond requirement, and (ii) transmitting a communication regarding the performance bond requirement" Claims 9, 16)
Claim 11, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 11 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 11 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 8, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 8, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 11 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 11, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to perform operations that include: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to perform operations that include:" Claims 9-10, 13)
• 11 ¶ 2 • calculating, for each of the one or more replacement swaps, a replacement swap fixed rate value xB, a replacement swap notional value NB, and a replacement swap floating rate spread value c according to Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 4 Par. 2)
• 11 ¶ 3 • Equation 4A Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 4 Par. 3)
• 11 ¶ 4 • Equation 4B Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[Equation 4B]" Claims 3, 10, 17)
• 11 ¶ 5 • Equation 4C Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[Equation 4C]" Claims 3, 10, 17)
• 11 ¶ 6 • xj is a fixed rate value for the jth interest rate swap, wherein m is the number of interest rate swaps in the plurality of interest rate swaps, N is a notional value of the j'h interest rate swap, G is the number of floating rate payment periods in the common tenor, fg is a floating rate value corresponding to the g' floating rate payment period, dfg is a floating rate discount factor corresponding to the g' floating rate payment period, and dtg is a duration of the g' floating rate payment period. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 4 Par. 6)
Claim 12, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 12 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 12 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 8, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 8, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 12 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 12, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein" Claims 9-10, 12-13)
• 12 ¶ 2 • a DVO1 value for the one or more replacement swaps is the same as a sum of DVO1 values for the plurality interest rate swaps, and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 5 Par. 2)
• 12 ¶ 3 • a CVO1 value for the one or more replacement swaps is the same as a sum of CVO1 values for the plurality of interest rate swaps. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 5 Par. 3)
Claim 13, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 13 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 13 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 8, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 8, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 13 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 13, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to perform operations that include: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein the computer executable instructions are further executable to cause the computer system to perform operations that include:" Claims 9-10, 13)
• 13 ¶ 2 • determining a performance bond requirement of the plurality of interest rate swaps based on first and second disaggregated swaps, Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 6 Par. 2)
• 13 ¶ 3 • the first disaggregated swap comprises a replacement swap fixed rate value xB, a first disaggregated swap notional value NB1, and a first disaggregated swap spread value ci, and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 6 Par. 3)
• 13 ¶ 4 • the second disaggregated swap comprises the replacement swap fixed rate value xB, a second disaggregated swap notional value NB2, and a second disaggregated swap spread value c2, and further comprising stored computer executable instructions that, when executed, cause the computer system to perform operations that include: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "the second disaggregated swap comprises the compressed swap fixed rate value x.sub.B, a second disaggregated swap notional value N.sub.B2, and a second disaggregated swap spread value c.sub.2, and further comprising stored computer executable instructions that, when executed, cause the computer system to perform operations that include:" Claim 13)
• 13 ¶ 5 • determining a required precision for the floating rate spread value c; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 6 Par. 5)
• 13 ¶ 6 • determining the required precision is greater than an available precision; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 6 Par. 6)
• 13 ¶ 7 • based on the determining that the required precision is greater than an available precision, selecting a cl value greater than the c value and a c2 value less than the c value; and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 6 Par. 7)
• 13 ¶ 8 • determining NB1 and NB2 values such NB1(x)c1 + NB2(x)c2=NB(x)C and such that NB1 + NB2=NB. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining N.sub.B1 and N.sub.B2 values such N.sub.B1*c.sub.1+N.sub.B2*c.sub.2=N.sub.B*c and such that N.sub.B1+N.sub.B2=N.sub.B" Claims 6, 13, 20)
Claim 14, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 14 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 14 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 13, which is also a dependent claim, and thus the instant claim indirectly depends upon claim 8, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claims 13 and 8, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 14 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 14, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein:" Claim 14)
• 14 ¶ 2 • determining the required precision comprises determining the required precision according to Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining the required precision comprises determining the required precision according to" Claims 7, 14, 21)
• 14 ¶ 3 • Equation 7 Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[Equation 7]" Claims 7, 14, 21)
• 14 ¶ 4 • D is the required precision, E is a constant chosen to limit a difference between a present value of the one or more replacement swaps and combined present values of the plurality of interest rate swaps, m is the number of interest rate swaps in the plurality of interest rate swaps, xj is a fixed rate value for the jth interest rate swap, N is a notional value of the jth interest rate swap, G is the number of floating rate payment periods in the common tenor, fg is a floating rate value corresponding to the g' floating rate payment period, dfg is a floating rate discount factor corresponding to the g' floating rate payment period, and dtg is a duration of the g' floating rate payment period. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 7 Par. 4)
Claim 15, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 15 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 15 is an independent claim. BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 15 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 15, a computer system comprising: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[a] computer system comprising:" Claim 15)
• 15 ¶ 2 • a memory device having a defined storage capacity; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "a memory device having a defined storage capacity;" Claim 15)
• 15 ¶ 3 • at least one processor coupled with the memory device; and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "at least one processor coupled with the memory device;" Claim 15)
• 15 ¶ 4 • at least one non-transitory memory coupled with the processor, wherein the at least one non-transitory memory stores instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "at least one non-transitory memory coupled with the processor, wherein the at least one non-transitory memory stores instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to" Claim 15)
• 15 ¶ 5 • perform, automatically when the data size of data corresponding to a portfolio comprising a plurality of interest rate swaps, each being characterized by a risk value, exceeds a defined data storage capacity of a non-transitory memory device in which the data is stored: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "perform operations that include: accessing stored data in the non-transitory memory device corresponding to a portfolio comprising a plurality of interest rate swaps, each being characterized by a risk value; comparing, by the computer system, a data size of the portfolio to the defined data storage capacity and when the size of the portfolio exceeds the defined data storage capacity, performing, automatically by the computer system:" Claim 15)
• 15 ¶ 6 • calculate one or more replacement swaps having a combined risk value equivalent to a sum of the risk values of each of at least a subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "calculating a compressed swap having a risk value equivalent to a sum of the risk values of each of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio;" Claims 8, 15)
• 15 ¶ 7 • form replacement data corresponding to a replacement portfolio comprising the one or more replacement swaps in place of the subset of the plurality of interest rate swaps of the portfolio; and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "storing, by the computer system, second data comprising a compressed portfolio comprising the compressed swap by replacing the data comprising the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device with the second data to minimize a data storage requirement of the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device" Claims 1, 8, 15)
• 15 ¶ 8 • replace the data comprising the portfolio with the replacement data in the non-transitory memory device to reduce a data storage requirement of the portfolio therein. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "storing, by the computer system, second data comprising a compressed portfolio comprising the compressed swap by replacing the data comprising the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device with the second data to minimize a data storage requirement of the portfolio in the non-transitory memory device" Claims 1, 8, 15)
Claim 17, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 17 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 17 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 15, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 15, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 17 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 17, the computer system of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the processor to: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he computer system of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the processor to" Claims 16-17, 20)
• 17 ¶ 2 • determine, based at least in part on the combined risk value of the one or more replacement swaps, a performance bond requirement attributable to the plurality of interest rate swaps; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining, based at least in part on the compressed swap parameters, a performance bond requirement attributable to the interest rate swaps;" Claims 9, 16)
• 17 ¶ 3 • compare the performance bond requirement to account data associated with a holder of the portfolio; Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "comparing the performance bond requirement to account data associated with a holder of the portfolio;" Claims 9, 16)
• 17 ¶ 4 • performing one or more additional actions based on the comparing comprising at least one of (i) storing data regarding satisfaction of the performance bond requirement, and (ii) transmitting a communication regarding the performance bond requirement. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 10 Par. 4)
Claim 18, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 18 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 18 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 15, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 15, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 18 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 18, the computer system of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the processor to perform operations that include: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he computer system of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the processor to perform operations that include:" Claims 16-17, 20)
• 18 ¶ 2 • calculating, for each of the one or more replacement swaps, a replacement swap fixed rate value xB, a replacement swap notional value NB, and a replacement swap floating rate spread value c according to Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 4 Par. 2)
• 18 ¶ 3 • Equation 4A Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 4 Par. 3)
• 18 ¶ 4 • Equation 4B Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[Equation 4B]" Claims 3, 10, 17)
• 18 ¶ 5 • Equation 4C Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[Equation 4C]" Claims 3, 10, 17)
• 18 ¶ 6 • xj is a fixed rate value for the jth interest rate swap, wherein N is a notional value of the jth interest rate swap, wherein m is the number of interest rate swaps in the plurality of interest rate swaps, G is the number of floating rate payment periods in the common tenor, fg is a floating rate value corresponding to the g' floating rate payment period, dfg is a floating rate discount factor corresponding to the g' floating rate payment period, and dtg is a duration of the g' floating rate payment period. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 4 Par. 6)
Claim 19, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 19 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 19 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 15, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 15, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 19 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 19, the computer system of claim 15, wherein Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he computer system of claim 15, wherein" Claims 16-17, 19-20)
• 19 ¶ 2 • a DVO1 value for the one or more replacement swaps is the same as a sum of DVO1 values for the plurality of interest rate swaps, and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 5 Par. 2)
• 19 ¶ 3 • a CVO1 value for the one or more replacement swaps is the same as a sum of CVO1 values for the plurality of interest rate swaps. Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 5 Par. 3)
Claim 20, EXAMINER's Analysis: Claim 20 is rejected as being anticipated by BOBERSKI-Claims. Claim 20 is a dependent claim that directly depends upon parent claim 15, which is an independent claim. Further to and in conjunction with the disclosures and teachings of the prior art recited in the parent as applied to the limitations of claim 15, BOBERSKI-Claims discloses the claimed subject matter of claim 20 as follows and as explained below.
Regarding and as per CLAIM 20, the computer system of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the processor to perform operations that include: Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "[t]he computer system of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the processor to perform operations that include:" Claims 16-17, 20)
• 20 ¶ 2 • determining a performance bond requirement attributable to the plurality of interest rate swaps based on first and second disaggregated swaps, Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "determining a performance bond requirement attributable to the plurality of interest rate swaps based on first and second disaggregated swaps," Claim 20)
• 20 ¶ 3 • the first disaggregated swap comprises a replacement swap fixed rate value xB, a first disaggregated swap notional value NB1, and a first disaggregated swap spread value ci, and Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 6 Par. 3)
• 20 ¶ 4 • the second disaggregated swap comprises the replacement swap fixed rate value xB, a second disaggregated swap notional value NB2, and a second disaggregated swap spread value c2, and wherein the at least one non-transitory memory stores instructions that, when executed, cause the computer system to perform operations that include Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: discloses "the second disaggregated swap comprises the compressed swap fixed rate value x.sub.B, a second disaggregated swap notional value N.sub.B2, and a second disaggregated swap spread value c.sub.2, and wherein the at least one non-transitory memory stores instructions that, when executed, cause the computer system to perform operations that include" Claim 20)
• 20 ¶ 5 • determining a required precision for the floating rate spread value c, Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 6 Par. 5)
• 20 ¶ 6 • determining the required precision is greater than an available precision, Line Comment: (BOBERSKI-Claims: See Prior Comment at Claim 6 Par. 6)
• 20 ¶ 7 • based on the determining that the required precision is greater than an available precision, selecting a cl value greater than the c value and a c2