Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the RCE filed on 09/02/2026.
Claims 2, 15 and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 3-14, 16-19 and 21 were previously presented.
Claim 1 was previously cancelled.
Therefore, claims 2-21 are pending and addressed below.
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/02/2026 has been entered.
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, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the possession and enablement requirement.
Claims 2, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the possession requirement or the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention or to conclude that as of the critical date, the inventors had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention. As set forth in the rejection under 112(b), the scope of the claim is so broad that the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with any reasonable certainty. Claims 2, 15 and 20 recites the limitations “…while causing the reserved quantity of the trading order to decay, thereby improving system efficiency of the apparatus…”. The specification does not show possession of the extremely broad scope of claims 2, 15 and 20. As to enablement, applying relevant Wands factors, the claims are extremely broad, no direction or working examples are given by the inventors and the quantity of experimentation necessary to make or use all permutations covered by the claims would be nearly infinite.
Dependent claims 3-14, 16-19 and 21 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 2, 15 and 20 and are rejected accordingly.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-21 are directed to an apparatus, which is a process, a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “…store an order book; receiving from a trader … at a first time a trading order for a particular quantity of a trading product, in which a first portion of the particular quantity is a displayed quantity, and a second portion of the particular quantity is a reserved quantity, in which the second portion is greater than zero; recording the trading order in the order book; reducing the reserved quantity in accordance with a decay rule to a reduced reserved quantity; in response to receiving a matching counterorder; filling the displayed quantity; and when the reserved quantity is greater than zero, replenishing the displayed quantity by reducing the reserved quantity, independently of the reduction in accordance with the decay rule”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities, business relations, i.e. organizing the quantity of product in a trading order in anticipation of a trade, a pre-sale activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the apparatus claimed of a processor, a communication network, a trader computer, a memory, an order book and one or more market center computers that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…store an order book; …receiving…a trading order…; recording…the trading order; reducing …the reserved quantity with a decay rule… wherein reducing the reserved quantity comprises deleting…the order trading order from order book…while causing the reserved quantity of the trading order to decay…, thereby improving system efficiency of the apparatus; receiving …a matching counterorder; filling …the displayed quantity; replenishing …the displayed quantity by reducing… the reserved quantity, transmitting … the displayed quantity of the trading order; and preventing transmission… of the reserved quantity…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the limitations of transmitting … the displayed quantity and not transmitting … the reserved quantity … generally implement the recited abstract idea of preparing to trade a portion of a quantity of a product while reserving and not preparing to currently trade another portion of a quantity of a product (the reserved portion), using nothing more than the insignificant extra-solution activities of sending and receiving particular data over a computer network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) and cases cited therein). Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the replenishing and the reducing in accordance with the decay rule” are further stated/defined at a high level of generality to be executed as independent processes on the trading order stored in the order book. In addition, the limitations “deleting at least part of the trading order from the order book in the memory to free memory resources”, which are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor, the communication network, the trader computer, the memory, the order book and the one or more market center computers are recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…store an order book; …receiving…a trading order…; recording…the trading order; reducing …the reserved quantity with a decay rule… wherein reducing the reserved quantity comprises deleting…the order trading order from order book…while causing the reserved quantity of the trading order to decay…, thereby improving system efficiency of the apparatus; receiving …a matching counterorder; filling …the displayed quantity; replenishing …the displayed quantity by reducing… the reserved quantity, transmitting … the displayed quantity of the trading order; and preventing transmission… of the reserved quantity…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Additionally, the limitations directing to sending particular data (in this case, the “displayed quantity”) but not sending other data (in this case, the “reserved quantity”) amount to nothing more than receiving or transmitting data over a network. Courts have recognized such computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) discussing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the replenishing and the reducing in accordance with the decay rule” are further stated/defined at a high level of generality to be executed as independent processes on the trading order stored in the order book. In addition, the limitations “deleting at least part of the trading order from the order book in the memory to free memory resources”, which are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions (see Veres et al. (6,609,186) disclosed an invention that manages space in a computer memory by removing data from the memory in a manner that does not preclude use of the data object that comprises the data. The invention contemplates the use of a "downsize" operation, which reduces the space occupied by a data object in a memory in order to free up space, see abstract, column 1, lines 65-67 through column 2, lines 1-20 and Fig.5). When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 15 and 20 are rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 3-14, 16-19 and 21 are dependent on claims 1, 15 and 20. Therefore, the dependent claims 3-14, 16-19 and 21 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 15 and 20. The dependent claims 3-14, 16-19 and 21 further recite the limitations that merely add further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of a processor included in the dependent claims 5, 6, 11, 19 and a second trader computer include in the dependent claim 12 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving, determining, storing, transmitting, not transmitting data and updating the rules of the trading order”, such that such limitations amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 2 of the current application is rejected as unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,713,724 (hereinafter, the ‘724 Patent”).
Both claim 2 of the present application and claim 1 in the ‘724 Patent are directed to an apparatus comprising at least one processor configured for: receiving, from a trader or computer of a trader at a first time, a trading order for a particular quantity of a trading product, in which a first portion of the particular quantity is a displayed quantity and a second portion of the particular quantity is a reserved quantity, in which the second portion is greater than zero…; reducing the reserved quantity in accordance with a decay rule to a reduced reserved quantity…; transmitting, over the communication network, the displayed quantity of the trading order to one or more market center computers and ; and preventing transmission of the reserved quantity…”.
Thus, claim 1 of the ‘724 Patent teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application. However, claim 1 of the ‘724 Patent also contains additional limitations not found in claim 2 of the instant application, such as those of limitations (i), (j) and (k) of claim 1 of the ‘724 Patent. Accordingly, claim 1 of the ‘724 application is directed to a species of claim 2 of the current application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claim 1 of the ‘724 Patent so that the trading order would be processed more efficiently.
Claim 2 of the current application is also rejected as unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,453,132 (hereinafter, the ‘132 Patent”). Although the two claims are not identical to one another, they are not patentably distinct, as explained below.
Claim 1 of the ‘132 Patent teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to receive, from a trader at a first time, a trading order for a particular quantity of a trading product, in which a first portion of the particular quantity is a displayed quantity and a second portion of the particular quantity is a reserved quantity, in which the second portion is greater than zero; reduce the reserved quantity in accordance with a decay rule to a reduced reserved quantity; transmit, over a communication network, the displayed quantity of the trading order to one or more market center computers; and prevent transmission, over the communication network, of the amount of the reserved quantity to the one or more market center computers. Thus, claim 1 of the ‘132 Patent teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 2 of the present application.
However, claim 1 of the ‘132 Patent has additional limitations not found in claim 2 of the present application, such as transmitting the amount of the displayed quantity of the trading order to displays on trade computers (limitation (e)), preventing transmission of the reserved quantity of the trading order to trader computers of the other traders (limitation (f)) and limitations (i), (j) and (k). Accordingly, claim 1 of the ‘132 Patent is a species of claim 2 of the instant application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claim 1 of the ‘132 Patent so that the trading order would be processed more efficiently.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 2-21 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…Applicant submits that claims 2, 15, and 20, as amended, recite patentable subject matter. Even if arguendo claims 2, 15, and 20 are deemed to recite a judicial exception, claims 2, 15, and 20 are integrated into a practical application (See USPTO's January 2019 and October 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG"), Step 2A, Prong II) …” (Please see the remarks on pages 10-13).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the office has explained above, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the apparatus claimed of a processor, a communication network, a trader computer, a memory, an order book and one or more market center computers that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…store an order book; …receiving…a trading order…; recording…the trading order; reducing …the reserved quantity with a decay rule… wherein reducing the reserved quantity comprises deleting…the order trading order from order book…while causing the reserved quantity of the trading order to decay…, thereby improving system efficiency of the apparatus; receiving …a matching counterorder; filling …the displayed quantity; replenishing …the displayed quantity by reducing… the reserved quantity, transmitting … the displayed quantity of the trading order; and preventing transmission… of the reserved quantity…”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the limitations of transmitting … the displayed quantity and not transmitting … the reserved quantity … generally implement the recited abstract idea of preparing to trade a portion of a quantity of a product while reserving and not preparing to currently trade another portion of a quantity of a product (the reserved portion), using nothing more than the insignificant extra-solution activities of sending and receiving particular data over a computer network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) and cases cited therein). Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the replenishing and the reducing in accordance with the decay rule” are further stated/defined at a high level of generality to be executed as independent processes on the trading order stored in the order book. In addition, the limitations “deleting at least part of the trading order from the order book in the memory to free memory resources”, which are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions. 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. Thus, the claimed invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field and thus does not integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application…” (Please see the remarks on pages 10-13). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…In particular, as amended in the base claims, the operation of "reducing the reserved quantity in accordance with a decay rule to a reduced reserved quantity, wherein reducing the reserved quantity comprises "recording the trading order in the order book in the memory" and "deleting at least part of the trading order from the order book in the memory to free memory resources while causing the reserved quantity of the trading order to decay, thereby improving system efficiency of the apparatus" describes a specific data structure from which portions of the trading order are deleted to free up memory, thereby improving trading efficiency. It is respectfully submitted that the amended claim invention does not refer to a bare recitation of a business outcome… Under MPEP §2106.05(a), quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 225, examiners must consider whether the claim 'purport[s] to improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field - here, the claimed deletion step frees memory resources of the apparatus, improves efficiency of the apparatus, and is a technical improvement felt in the operation of the memory itself, not merely in the trading outcome the apparatus produces… Accordingly, the claimed invention "improve[s] the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field…" (Please see the remarks on pages 10-13).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “…reducing the reserved quantity in accordance with a decay rule to a reduced reserved quantity, wherein reducing the reserved quantity comprises deleting at least part of the trading order from the order book in the memory to free memory resources while causing the reserved quantity of the trading order to decay, thereby improving system efficiency of the apparatus”, which the claim performs the functions of “reducing ….the reserved quantity with a decay rule…, deleting… at least part of the trading order from the order book…while causing the reserved quantity of the trading order to decay…, thereby improving system efficiency of the apparatus”. Additionally, the limitations “deleting at least part of the trading order from the order book in the memory to free memory resources”, which are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions (see Veres et al. (6,609,186) disclosed an invention that manages space in a computer memory by removing data from the memory in a manner that does not preclude use of the data object that comprises the data. The invention contemplates the use of a "downsize" operation, which reduces the space occupied by a data object in a memory in order to free up space, see abstract, column 1, lines 65-67 through column 2, lines 1-20 and Fig.5). Thus, when viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, as the Applicant pointed out in specification in paragraph 88 and the remarks on pages 10-11:
“[0088] Another advantage is that, by causing the reserved quantity of trading order to decay, the trading system may improve system efficiency. In particular, as trading orders with reserved quantities are not aggressed, trading system may gradually delete the reserved quantities of such trading orders from one or more order books. Deleting portions of such trading orders may free up memory and processing resources in the trading system. Trading system may thereby improve data throughput and/or conserve system resources. (emphasis added)”
Examiner fails to see in the Applicant’s specification nor in the claims the limitations of how the trading system may improve system efficiency? Or How improving system efficiency of the apparatus? Thus, merely automating the process of managing the reserved quantity of a trading order (please see the Applicant’s remarks on page 12) using the processor, the communication network, the trader computer, the memory and the one or more market center computers of the apparatus to try to make the process faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality.”) (citation omitted); Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commce’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Even assuming this collection of elements led to a more efficient way of controlling resource access, ‘our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.’’’) (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same).
Furthermore, as the Applicant pointed out in specification in paragraph 88: “…In particular, as trading orders with reserved quantities are not aggressed, trading system may gradually delete the reserved quantities of such trading orders from one or more order books. Deleting portions of such trading orders may free up memory and processing resources in the trading system. Trading system may thereby improve data throughput and/or conserve system resources”. Thus, these improvements in paragraph 88 are improvements in a business/financial solution of how to manage the reserved quantity of a trading order (please see the Applicant’s remarks on page 12) to make the trading orders with reserved quantities are aggressed and the trading system improve data throughput and/or conserve system resources.
Therefore, there are no technical solutions and do not include improvements the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field in the Applicant’s claims (Please see the Applicant’s remarks on pages 10-13). Automating the process in the Applicant’s claims improve the business process, not technology. Merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea that improves a business process (i.e. the abstract idea) does not equate to a technological solution. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…Under Step 2B, an inquiry is made whether the claims include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant respectfully submits that the foregoing is moot because the claims are integrated into a practical application…” (Please see the remarks on pages 10-13).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor, the communication network, the trader computer, the memory, the order book and the one or more market center computers are recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…store an order book; …receiving…a trading order…; recording…the trading order; reducing …the reserved quantity with a decay rule… wherein reducing the reserved quantity comprises deleting…the order trading order from order book…while causing the reserved quantity of the trading order to decay…, thereby improving system efficiency of the apparatus; receiving …a matching counterorder; filling …the displayed quantity; replenishing …the displayed quantity by reducing… the reserved quantity, transmitting … the displayed quantity of the trading order; and preventing transmission… of the reserved quantity…”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Additionally, the limitations directing to sending particular data (in this case, the “displayed quantity”) but not sending other data (in this case, the “reserved quantity”) amount to nothing more than receiving or transmitting data over a network. Courts have recognized such computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) discussing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the replenishing and the reducing in accordance with the decay rule” are further stated/defined at a high level of generality to be executed as independent processes on the trading order stored in the order book. In addition, the limitations “deleting at least part of the trading order from the order book in the memory to free memory resources”, which are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions (see Veres et al. (6,609,186) disclosed an invention that manages space in a computer memory by removing data from the memory in a manner that does not preclude use of the data object that comprises the data. The invention contemplates the use of a "downsize" operation, which reduces the space occupied by a data object in a memory in order to free up space, see abstract, column 1, lines 65-67 through column 2, lines 1-20 and Fig.5). When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
Previous Double Patenting
The Double Patenting rejection will be held in abeyance until the Applicant provides a valid terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
