DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in response to the application filed on September 13, 2023.
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Terminal Disclaimer
4. Examiner asserts that a Terminal Disclaimer is warranted to the instant application 18/367,686 and US Patent 11,798,078 (formerly Application 17/169,670) sharing the same inventive entity and claim language which would otherwise result in a double patenting rejection.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "2202" and "2214" have both been used to designate an order book allocator, which may also be referred to as an order router and/or balancer. (See Applicant Spec para 291, 294 and 299, Figures 22-23)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
6. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2202” has been used to designate both a high performance order book controller and an order book allocator, which may also be referred to as an order router and/or balancer. (See Applicant Spec paras 291. 294 and 299 and Figures 22-23)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
7. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
As in Claim 1:
a memory operative to store a plurality of databases, each of which is configured to store data indicative of a result of processing, by one of a plurality of hardware match engines of a transaction processing system, of a set of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for a subset of a plurality of items different from a subset of the plurality of items for which data indicative of the result of processing previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages is stored in the others of the plurality of databases;
automatically identify which subset of the plurality of databases stored in the memory stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for the same item, and any item related thereto, as the incoming transaction message and determine whether exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated to any one of the plurality of hardware match engines and:
when it has been determined that exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated, forward the incoming transaction message via the network to the one of the plurality of hardware match engines to which exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated; and
when it has been determined that exclusive access to the identified subset is not currently allocated to any of the plurality of hardware match engines, identify one hardware match engine, of the plurality of hardware match engines, to which exclusive access to none of the plurality of databases is currently allocated, allocate exclusive access to the identified subset to the identified one hardware match engine and forward the incoming transaction message thereto via the network, the identified one hardware match engine being the same or different from a hardware match engine that was previously identified responsive to a previously received incoming transaction;
wherein each of the plurality of hardware match engines is operative to process a transaction message forwarded thereto by being further operative to perform a search of only the databases allocated thereto for another previously received but unsatisfied transaction stored therein and, when the processed transaction remains unsatisfied thereafter, store the processed transaction in the database of the allocated subset which stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transactions for the same item, or an item related thereto, as the processed transaction;
wherein the allocation logic is further operative to automatically deallocate exclusive access to those of the plurality of databases currently allocated to any of the plurality of hardware match engines when that hardware match engine has completed the processing of all incoming transaction messages forwarded thereto prior to another incoming transaction message being forwarded thereto by the allocation logic.
As in Claim 18:
store a plurality of databases, each of which is configured to store data indicative of a result of processing, by one of a plurality of hardware match engines of a transaction processing system, of a set of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for a subset of a plurality of items different from a subset of the plurality of items for which data indicative of the result of processing previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages is stored in the others of the plurality of databases;
identify, automatically responsive to receipt of each of the plurality of incoming transaction messages received by the transaction receiver via the network, each for one of the plurality of items and prior to forwarding each incoming transaction message to one of the plurality of hardware match engines, which subset of the plurality of databases stored in the memory stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for the same item, and any item related thereto, as the incoming transaction message and determine whether exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated to any one of the plurality of hardware match engines and:
when it has been determined that exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated, forward the incoming transaction message via the network to the one of the plurality of hardware match engines to which exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated; and
when it has been determined that exclusive access to the identified subset is not currently allocated to any of the plurality of hardware match engines, identify one hardware match engine, of the plurality of hardware match engines, to which exclusive access to none of the plurality of databases is currently allocated, allocate exclusive access to the identified subset to the identified one hardware match engine and forward the incoming transaction message thereto via the network, the identified one hardware match engine being the same or different from a hardware match engine that was previously identified responsive to a previously received incoming transaction;
wherein each of the plurality of hardware match engines is operative to process a transaction message forwarded thereto by being further operative to perform a search of only the databases allocated thereto for another previously received but unsatisfied transaction stored therein and, when the processed transaction remains unsatisfied thereafter, store the processed transaction in the database of the allocated subset which stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transactions for the same item, or an item related thereto, as the processed transaction;
wherein the order book allocator is further configured to automatically deallocate exclusive access to those of the plurality of databases currently allocated to any of the plurality of hardware match engines when that hardware match engine has completed the processing of all incoming transaction messages forwarded thereto prior to another incoming transaction message being forwarded thereto by the allocation logic.
As in Claim 19:
storing, in a memory, a plurality of databases, each of which is configured to store data indicative of a result of processing, by one of a plurality of hardware match engines of a transaction processing system, of a set of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for a subset of a plurality of items different from a subset of the plurality of items for which data indicative of the result of processing previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages is stored in the others of the plurality of databases;
identifying, automatically by allocation logic external to the plurality of match engines, responsive to receipt of each of the plurality of incoming transaction messages received by the transaction receiver via the network, each for one of the plurality of items and prior to forwarding each incoming transaction message to one of the plurality of hardware match engines:
wherein each of the plurality of hardware match engines is operative to process a transaction message forwarded thereto by being further operative to perform a search of only the databases allocated thereto for another previously received but unsatisfied transaction stored therein and, when the processed transaction remains unsatisfied thereafter, store the processed transaction in the database of the allocated subset which stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transactions for the same item, or an item related thereto, as to the processed transaction;
As in Claim 3:
wherein the allocation logic further maintains a data structure which stores data representative of which items of the plurality of items have at least one component item in common.
As in Claim 4:
wherein the data structure further stores the locations in the memory in which each of the plurality of databases is stored.
As in Claim 10:
wherein the plurality of hardware match engines includes a minimum number of hardware match engines such that an unallocated hardware match engine is always available to have forwarded thereto an incoming transaction message associated with an unallocated database.
As in Claim 12:
wherein the allocation logic is further configured to detect an update to the stored data in one of the plurality of memory portions by the hardware match engine associated therewith and cause the update to be accessible by the others of the plurality of hardware match engines.
As in Claim 14:
further comprising an implicator coupled with the memory, the plurality of hardware match engines and the allocation logic, and operative to, when the processed transaction remains unsatisfied, identify at least one previously received but unsatisfied transaction message for an item related to the item of the processed transaction and generate a synthetic order therefore and submit the synthetic order to the transaction processing system.
As in Claim 16:
wherein the allocation logic is further operative to forward an incoming transaction message to one of the plurality of hardware match engines based on available processing capacity of each of the plurality of hardware match engines, the one of the plurality of hardware match engines being the same engine to which a prior incoming transaction message for the same item as the incoming transaction message was forwarded, or a combination thereof.
As in Claim 17:
wherein the allocation logic is operative to facilitate access to the identified subset by providing the data representative thereof to the particular hardware match engine for use thereby and retrieving the data representative of the identified subset from the hardware match engine subsequent to the completion of the processing of all incoming transaction messages forwarded thereto prior to another incoming transaction message being forwarded thereto by the allocation logic.
Applicant has recited a “transaction receiver”. The term is at least defined by the Applicant’s specification and drawing as follows:
“The system 200 includes a transaction receiver 210, e.g., an orderer as described above, which may be implemented as one or more logic components such as on an FPGA which may include a memory or reconfigurable component to store logic and processing component to execute the stored logic…” (See Applicant Specification para 126)
“The system 400 includes a transaction receiver 402, which may be implemented as one or more logic components of an FPGA, such as the same FPGA in which the orderer 210 and decider 212 are implemented as described above, or otherwise coupled therewith, such as via the network device backplane. Alternatively, the transaction receiver 402 may be implemented as logic, such as computer program logic, stored in a memory and executable by a processor coupled therewith to cause the processor to act as described.” (See Applicant Specification para 152)
PNG
media_image1.png
651
965
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It appears that the recited “transaction receiver” (depicted as Orderer 210) is being recited as a logic component or computer program logic, and thus software, and will be interpreted as such for purposes of examination.
Applicant has recited an “order book allocator”. The term is at least defined by the Applicant’s specification and drawing(s) as follows:
“In one embodiment, the set of previously received but unsatisfied orders further may further include, or otherwise may be subdivided into one more financial instrument subsets, each financial subset, e.g., order book, comprising those previously received orders of the set which are for a transaction for the same financial instrument of the plurality of financial instruments, wherein the order book allocator 2202 is further operative to determine the subset of the set of previously received but unsatisfied orders by identifying those financial instrument subsets associated with financial instruments having at least one component thereof, e.g., are interdependent, in common with each other and the financial instrument of the incoming order. In this way all interdependent order books may be allocated to the particular selected match engine 2206 which, as will be described above and further below, may facilitation implication. For example, in one embodiment, each of the plurality of match engines 2206 may be further operative to attempt to identify an implied match for the incoming order among the orders of the allocated subset for financial instruments, described below, which are not identical to the financial instrument of the incoming order. (See Applicant Specification para 288)
“The system 2200 further includes an order book allocator 2202, which may also be referred to as an order router and/or balancer and which may be implemented as one or more logic components of an FPGA, such as the same FPGA in which the orderer 210 and decider 212 are implemented as described above, or otherwise coupled therewith, such as via the network device backplane. Alternatively, the order book allocator 2202 may be implemented as logic such as computer program logic, stored in a memory and executable by a processor coupled therewith to cause the processor to act as described. The order book allocator 2202 is coupled with the memory 2204 and the plurality of match engines 2206 and operative to, upon receipt of an incoming order from a market participant 204 for a transaction for a financial instrument, determine a subset of the set of previously received but unsatisfied orders each having at least one component of the associated financial instrument in common with the financial instrument of the incoming order, and determine if access to the subset has been previously allocated, e.g., accorded, provided or otherwise granted, to one of the plurality of match engines 2206, which may imply that the incoming order is related to a prior order which is still undergoing the match process, and, where access to the subset has been previously allocated to one of the plurality of match engines 2206, route, or otherwise provide, the incoming order thereto for a match attempt thereby, and wherein access to the subset has not been allocated to one of the match engines 2206, select one of the plurality of match engines 2206, allocate access to the subset to the selected match engine 2206 and route the incoming order to the selected match engine 2206 for a match attempt thereby. In one embodiment, the allocation of the subset may include transferring at least a copy of the subset to a memory 2208, e.g., a cache or other local memory, associated with the selected match engine 2206.” (See Applicant Specification para 291)
“In one embodiment, the order book allocator 2202 is operative to facilitate access to the subset by providing the data representative thereof to the particular match engine 2206 for use thereby and retrieving the data representative of the subset from the match engine 2206 subsequent to the updating thereby.” (See Applicant Specification para 292)
“In one embodiment, the order book allocator 2202 is further operative to deallocate access to the subset when the selected match engine 2206 has completed the attempt to match all incoming orders routed thereto prior to another incoming order being routed thereto.” (See Applicant Specification para 293)
“In one embodiment, the order book allocator 2202 may further maintain a data structure or database 2212, which may be a sparse matrix or array, which stores data representative of which financial instruments of the plurality of financial instruments have at least one component thereof in common with another of the financial instruments of the plurality of financial instruments, which financial instruments, and thereby which order books are interdependent. This data structure 2212 may further store the locations in the memory 2204 in which each set of the previously received but unsatisfied orders is stored, which as described above, may be subdivided logically and/or physically, by the order book.” (See Applicant Specification para 294)
“In one embodiment, the order book allocator 2202 is operative to select one of the plurality of match engines 2206 based on an availability thereof, e.g., based on a selection algorithm, such as round robin, least recently used, load balancing, etc.” (See Applicant Specification para 295)
“In one embodiment, the memory 2204 further comprises a plurality of memory portions 2208, e.g., cache or local memories, as described above, each associated with one of the plurality of match engines 2206 and capable of storing at least the data representative of the subset of the set of previously received but unsatisfied orders. The order book allocator 2202 may then be further operative to detect, e.g., via snooping or snarfing, an update to the stored data in one of the plurality of memory portions 2208 by the match engine 2206 associated therewith and cause the update to be available to the others of the plurality of match engines 2206, e.g., write back.” (See Applicant Specification para 297)
“In one embodiment, the system 2200 further includes an implicatory (not shown), such as the implicatory 1102 as was described above, coupled with the memory 2204, the plurality of match engines 2206 and the order book allocator 2202, and operative to, as described above, when a match engine 2206 is unable to match the incoming order with at least one previously received but unsatisfied order for a counter transaction for the particular financial instrument of the incoming order, identify at least one previously received but unsatisfied order for a counter transaction for a financial instrument having at least one component in common with the particular financial instrument of the incoming order, and generate a synthetic, e.g., implied, order therefore and submit the synthetic order to the electronic trading system 100 or otherwise directly to the associated match engine 2206.” (See Applicant Specification para 298)
“In one embodiment, the system 2200 further includes an order router 2214 coupled with the plurality of match engines 2206 and the order book allocator 2202 and operative to route an incoming order to one of the plurality of match engines 2206 based on available processing capacity of each of the plurality of match engines 2206, e.g., subject to a load balancing algorithm or other allocation algorithm, the one of the plurality of match engines 2206 being the same engine to which a prior incoming order for a transaction for the same financial instrument as the incoming order was routed, or a combination thereof.” (See Applicant Specification para 299)
“The operation of system 2200 includes storing, such as in a memory 2204, e.g., an order book memory, data representative of a set of previously received but unsatisfied orders, e.g., which may be grouped into order books, such as by product for which the order is for, each order being for a transaction, which may specify side (buy/sell), price and/or quantity, for at least one of the plurality of financial instruments (Block 2402).” (See Applicant Specification para 301)
“In one embodiment, the set of previously received but unsatisfied orders by identifying those financial instrument subsets associated with financial instruments having at least one component thereof, e.g., are interdependent, in common with each other and the financial instrument of the incoming order. In this way all interdependent order books may be allocated to the particular selected match engine 2206 which, as will be described above and further below, may facilitate implication. For example, in one embodiment, each of the plurality of match engines 2206 may be further operative to attempt to identify an implied match for the incoming order among the orders of the allocated subset for financial instruments, described below, which are not identical to the financial instrument of the incoming order.” (See Applicant Specification para 303)
PNG
media_image2.png
758
1096
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It appears that the recited “order book allocator” is being recited as a logic component and thus software, and will be interpreted as such for purposes of examination.
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.
8. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As currently claimed, Independent Claim 18 recites a system claim comprising an order book allocator and a memory coupled therewith and further coupled with a plurality of hardware match engines external thereto via a network coupled therebetween and a transaction receiver, followed by a recitation of “the order book allocator being configured to:” followed by a series of steps.
One of the following steps recites:
“wherein each of the plurality of hardware match engines is operative to process a transaction message forwarded thereto by being further operative to perform a search of only the databases allocated thereto for another previously received but unsatisfied transaction stored therein and, when the processed transaction remains unsatisfied thereafter, store the processed transaction in the database of the allocated subset which stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transactions for the same item, or an item related thereto, as the processed transaction;”
It appears that Applicant is attempting to ascribe the operations of each of the plurality of hardware match engines to the order book allocator, which is not supported by the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites the limitation "the allocation logic" in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior recitation of allocation logic in the claim.
Regarding Claim 19, this claim recites the limitation “identifying, automatically by allocation logic external to the plurality of match engines, responsive to receipt of each of the plurality of incoming transaction messages received by the transaction receiver via the network, each for one of the plurality of items and prior to forwarding each incoming transaction message to one of the plurality of hardware match engines:”
There is unclear and/or Imperfect antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “the plurality of match engines” has not been referred to earlier in the claim. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim another plurality of match engines or is attempting to refer to the plurality of hardware match engines recited earlier in the claim. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim as reciting “…the plurality of hardware match engines…”, however appropriate clarification and correction is required. Dependent Claim 20 is further rejected as based on a rejected base claim.
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.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Claim 1 recites a system claim. Claim 18 recites a system claim. Claim 19 recites a method claim. The claims have additional rejections as being non-statutory, however Examiner assumes Applicant will rectify the claims to properly claim the invention as within statutory categories.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of transaction processing. The idea is described by the following limitations:
store data indicative of a result of processing of a set of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for a subset of a plurality of items different from a subset of the plurality of items for which data indicative of the result of processing previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages is stored;
receive a plurality of incoming transaction messages and forward each thereof;
responsive to receipt of each of the plurality of incoming transaction messages received, each for one of the plurality of items and prior to forwarding each incoming transaction message;
automatically identify which subset stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for the same item, and any item related thereto, as the incoming transaction message and determine whether exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated;
when it has been determined that exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated, forward the incoming transaction message to which exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated;
when it has been determined that exclusive access to the identified subset is not currently allocated, allocate exclusive access to the identified subset and forward the incoming transaction message thereto, the identified being the same or different from a previously identified responsive to a previously received incoming transaction;
wherein to process a transaction message forwarded thereto to perform a search of only those allocated thereto for another previously received but unsatisfied transaction stored therein, and when the processed transaction remains unsatisfied thereafter, store the processed transaction of the allocated subset which stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transactions for the same item, or an item related to, as the processed transaction;
wherein to automatically deallocate exclusive access to those currently allocated when the completed processing of all incoming transaction messages forwarded thereto prior to another incoming transaction message being forwarded thereto.
Claim 18 recites the abstract idea of transaction processing. The idea is described by the following limitations:
store data indicative of a result of processing of a set of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for a subset of a plurality of items different from a subset of the plurality of items for which data indicative of the result of processing previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages is stored;
identify, automatically responsive to receipt of each of the plurality of incoming transaction messages received, each for one of the plurality of items and prior to forwarding each incoming transaction message, which subset stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for the same item and any item related thereto, as the incoming transaction message and determine whether exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated and:
when it has been determined that exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated, forward the incoming transaction message to the one to which exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated; and
when it has been determined that exclusive access to the identified subset is not currently allocated to any, identify one to which exclusive access to none is currently allocated, allocated exclusive access to the identified subset and forward the incoming transaction message thereto, the identified being the same or different from that that was previously identified responsive to a previously received incoming transaction;
automatically deallocated exclusive access to those currently allocated to any that has completed the processing of all incoming transaction messages forwarded thereto prior to another incoming transaction message being forwarded thereto.
Claim 19 recites the abstract idea of transaction processing. The idea is described by the following limitations:
storing data indicative of a result of processing, a set of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for a subset of a plurality of items different from a subset of the plurality of items for which data indicative of the result of processing previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages stored;
receiving, a plurality of incoming transaction messages and forwarding each thereof;
identifying, automatically, responsive to receipt of each of the plurality of incoming transaction messages received, each for one of the plurality of items and prior to forwarding each incoming transaction message:
which subset stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transaction messages for the same item, and any item related thereto, as the incoming transaction message and determining whether exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated and:
forwarding, when it has been determined that exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated, the incoming transaction message to which exclusive access to the identified subset is currently allocated; and
identifying, when it has been determined that exclusive access to the identified subset is not currently allocated, to which exclusive access to none is currently allocated, allocating exclusive access to the identified subset and forwarding the incoming transaction message thereto, being the same or different from that was previously identified responsive to a previously received incoming transaction;
wherein to process a transaction message forwarded thereto by being further operative to perform a search of only allocated thereto for another previously received but unsatisfied transaction stored therein and, when the processed transaction remains unsatisfied thereafter, store the processed transaction of the allocated subset which stores the data representative of previously received but unsatisfied transactions for the same item, or an item related thereto, as to the processed transaction;
deallocating, automatically exclusive access to those currently allocated to any that has completed the processing of all incoming transaction messages forwarded thereto prior to another incoming transaction message being forwarded thereto
The abstract ideas outlined above describe fundamental economic principles or practices; commercial interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). (Step 2A – Prong 1: YES, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites a memory, a plurality of databases, a plurality of hardware match engines of a transaction processing system, a transaction receiver coupled with a network; allocation logic external to the plurality of match engines.
Claim 18 recites an order book allocator and a memory, a plurality of hardware match engines external thereto via a network, a transaction receiver, a plurality of databases of a transaction processing system, and allocation logic.
Claim 19 recites a memory, a plurality of databases, a plurality of hardware match engines of a transaction processing system, a transaction receiver coupled with a network, and allocation logic external to the plurality of match engines.
Further, the method outlines in Claim 19 does not sufficiently tie the method steps to a particular machine within the body of the claim. As such, the recitations are further failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application on this bsis.
In particular, the claims only recite a memory, a plurality of databases, a plurality of hardware match engines of a transaction processing system, a transaction receiver, a network, allocation logic, an order book allocator, which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 18-19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata, OIP Techs – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and electronically scanning or extracting data (Content Extraction – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A c