DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to response filed 2/27/26. There are no claim amendments. Claims 1-25 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting: The double patenting rejection is withdrawn because of terminal disclaimer filed on 2/27/26.
112(b): The Applicant’s response has been fully considered, and is persuasive.
Although the specification does not explicitly state that a module is equivalent to logic, under BRI, the processor 202 in FIG. 2. is interpreted as the means that execute logic (FIG. 2, items 206-214) and under BRI it’s reasonable to assume a module is equivalent to logic executed by the processor 202 of the system 200 in FIG. 2. See also, para. 73 of. spec. as filed “the Exchange computer system 100 includes a market data module 112 which may implement the disclosed mechanisms as will be describe with reference to Figure 2. However, as was discussed above, the disclosed mechanisms may be implemented at any logical and/or physical point(s) through which the relevant message traffic, and responses thereto, flows or is otherwise accessible, including one or more gateway devices, modems, the computers or terminals of one or more traders” which provides additional support execution of logic by hardware.
As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
102/103: The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and is not persuasive.
In pp. 21-24, the Applicant argues that the claims teach transmission when available bandwidth is less than threshold.
The Examiner disagrees.
The BRI of the claim (i.e.: claims 1, 14 or 25) is not transmission when bandwidth threshold is exceeded. The claim specifically recites in the first two determining limitations that “awaiting transmission to a recipient” when the “available bandwidth is less than threshold”. As stated in the non-final rejection, Callaway teaches the first two determinations recited in the claim within para. 24 “When the market data rate is beyond the threshold … sufficient bandwidth”. Callaway also teaches the “awaiting” limitation in para. 24 “the incoming market data may be placed in a buffer or a queue for transmission”.
The Applicant continues to argue that Callaway does not teach transmission when available bandwidth is under threshold in pages 24-26.
The Examiner disagrees.
As previously stated, the BRI of the claim does not include transmission when bandwidth threshold is exceeded. In the subsequent claim limitation “wherein when it is determined …, not transmitting, …, the stored generated data under the current available bandwidth … is not less than the threshold, repeating …, replacing … any previously generated data stored …” the claim discloses pausing transmission until bandwidth is above a bandwidth limit, repeating the evaluation and replacing old data with new data. Callaway, explicitly, teaches this limitation in para. 24 “the incoming market data may be placed in a buffer or a queue for transmission” and in para. 25 “The router may evaluate the newly entered market data … replace older market data… When the bandwidth becomes available, the messages in the queue are distributed by the market data router”.
As such, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims 1-2, 9-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20090063360 A1 (Callaway).
As to claims 1, 14 and 25.
Callaway teaches,
determining, periodically by a processor coupled with a memory and with an electronic communications network (FIG. 1, item 100, para. 32 “processors” and FIG. 2, item 208, para. 39 “memory”), that a current available bandwidth thereof is less than a threshold (para. 24 “The threshold may be a limit of the ability of a recipient to receive the market data and/or a communication … When the market data rate is beyond the threshold … sufficient bandwidth …”);
determining, by the processor based on the determination that the current available bandwidth is less than the threshold (para. 24), whether a dynamic condition has been satisfied for transmission of stored data generated by a transaction processing system when a current state of the transaction processing system changes (para. 24 “sufficient bandwidth”) and awaiting transmission to a recipient (para. 24 “the incoming market data may be placed in a buffer or a queue for transmission”), the dynamic condition being satisfied by each of a plurality of factors meeting a threshold value determined at the time of the determining whether the dynamic condition has been satisfied (para. 24 “when there is sufficient bandwidth to transmit the market data”);
wherein when it is determined that the dynamic condition has not been satisfied, not transmitting, by the processor, the stored generated data until the current available bandwidth of the electronic communications network is not less than the threshold (para. 24, “When the market data rate is beyond the threshold, the incoming market data may be placed in a buffer or a queue for transmission”) and repeating, by the processor, for a subsequent change in the current state of the transaction processing system, the determining of the satisfaction of the dynamic condition and replacing, in the memory, any previously generated data stored therein with any subsequently generated data that is determined to be an update thereto (para. 25 “replace older market data, or market data that previously entered the queue”); and
wherein when it is determined that the dynamic condition has been satisfied, transmitting, by the processor, at least a subset of the stored data to the recipient via the electronic communications network regardless of the current available bandwidth, and subsequently removing the transmitted subset from the memory (para. 25 “When the bandwidth becomes available, the messages in the queue are distributed by the market data router”).
additionally, with respect to claim 14,
Callaway teaches,
A system (FIG. 1, item 100, para. 27 “an exchange computer system”) comprising,
first logic stored in memory (para. 23 “a computer program stored on a computer-readable storage medium, such as a memory”) and executable by a process to cause the processor (para. 42 “ a microprocessor may be programmed with computer-executable instructions to perform the functions”) to,
second logic stored in memory (para. 23) and executable by a process to cause the processor (para. 42) to,
third logic stored in memory (para. 23) and executable by a process to cause the processor (para. 42) to,
fourth logic stored in memory (para. 23) and executable by a process to cause the processor (para. 42) to.
additionally, with respect to claim 25,
Callaway teaches,
A system (FIG. 1, item 100, para. 27 “an exchange computer system”) comprising,
means for (para. 42 “ a microprocessor may be programmed with computer-executable instructions to perform the functions”).
As to claims 2 and 15, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Callaway also teaches,
wherein the change in current state is indicative that an attempt to match an incoming order received from one of the plurality of market participants for at least one transaction for the one or more financial products with at least one previously received but unsatisfied order for a transaction counter thereto resulted in at least partial satisfaction of one or both of the incoming order or the at least one other previously received order (para. 6 “a match engine”, para. 23 “A market event and/or condition may be an executed transaction, a newly entered order, a cancelled order and the like”, [the examiner interprets the newly entered order as unsatisfied order], para. 25 “When the bandwidth becomes available, the messages in the queue are distributed by the market data router”, [the examiner interprets the distributed messages as at least partial satisfaction]).
As to claims 9 and 22, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Callaway also teaches,
wherein the dynamic condition comprises a combination of an occurrence of a specific change in the state of the transaction processing system (para. 25 “When the bandwidth becomes available, the messages in the queue are distributed by the market data router”) and an occurrence of a specific current state of the transaction processing system (para. 25 “When the bandwidth becomes available”).
As to claims 10 and 23, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Callaway also teaches,
wherein the subset of stored data to be transmitted is modified prior to transmission based on at least one preference specified by the recipient (para. 13 “The market data stream includes individual packets of information that can be categorized to form categories of information. Those categories of information can be designated as preferred”, para. 49 “a preferred category”).
As to claims 11 and 24, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 and 14 and 23.
Callaway also teaches,
wherein the subset of stored data is to be transmitted to more than one recipient (para. 13 “routed through a message queue to one or more subscribers”), the subset of stored data to be transmitted being modified prior to transmission based on at least one preference specified by one of the more than one recipient prior to transmission (para. 49 “one or more of the packets are categorized with a preferred category, those packets may be processed further”) thereto, and the subset of stored data to be transmitted not being modified prior to transmission to the others of the more than one recipient (para. 49 “If none of the packets of information are considered to be preferred information, the data 400 is sent to the message buffer”), both the subset of stored data and modified subset of stored data being transmitted substantially simultaneously to the more than one recipient (para. 49 “The message buffer 408 may provide the information to the message queue 404 and publish the data as bandwidth becomes available”).
As to claim 12, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Callaway also teaches,
wherein the subset of stored data to be transmitted is determined based at least on preference specified by the recipient (para. 13 and 49 “a preferred category”).
As to claims 13 and 21, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Callaway also teaches,
wherein the outdated previously generated data is aggregated and stored with the subsequently generated data thereby in the memory (FIG. 3, item 316 “If there is a previous instrument in the message queue for the same book update, the old book update in the message queue is replaced by the new one”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-6 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callaway in view of US 20100174633 (Milne).
As to claims 3 and 16, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Callaway does not teach,
wherein the generated data comprises at least a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion comprises first data identifying each of the one or more financial products transacted as a result of the at least partial satisfaction of one or both of the incoming order or the at least one previously received but unsatisfied order, and the second portion comprises second data enumerating each of the incoming order and at least one previously received but unsatisfied orders that were at least partially satisfied.
however, Milne teaches,
wherein the generated data comprises at least a first portion and a second portion (para. 108 “a first set of real orders wherein individual real orders are not tradable against each other… The first set of real orders can further belong to a resting set of real orders”), wherein the first portion comprises first data identifying each of the one or more financial products transacted as a result of the at least partial satisfaction of one or both of the incoming order or the at least one previously received but unsatisfied order (para. 108 “individual real orders are not tradable against each other …”), and the second portion comprises second data enumerating each of the incoming order and at least one previously received but unsatisfied orders that were at least partially satisfied (para. 108 “The resting set of orders can comprise all or part of the first set of real orders wherein the real orders are unmatched for trading”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine dynamic market data filtering of Callaway with enhancing implied orders of Milne because enhanced implied orders improves dynamic market data filtering by “[c]ombining the small improvements from two or more real orders can result in a big improvement in the implied order”, see Milne, para. 11.
As to claims 4 and 17, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Callaway does not teach,
wherein the generated data comprises one or more electronic reporting messages generated and stored in the memory for later transmission.
however, Milne teaches,
wherein the generated data comprises one or more electronic reporting messages generated and stored in the memory for later transmission (para. 97 “When the last thread has reported or some other criteria have been met, the Implicator passes the collection to a market data thread for translation into the form of message expected by the external trading system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine dynamic market data filtering of Callaway with enhancing implied orders of Milne because enhanced implied orders improves dynamic market data filtering by “[c]ombining the small improvements from two or more real orders can result in a big improvement in the implied order”, see Milne, para. 11.
As to claims 5 and 18, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Callaway does not teach,
determining, based on which plurality of factors satisfied the dynamic condition, which subset of stored data will be transmitted.
however, Milne teaches,
determining, based on which plurality of factors satisfied the dynamic condition, which subset of stored data will be transmitted (para. 19 “The filter criteria are adjusted automatically to expand or contract the amount of published market data in response to changes in trading conditions… The non-price property comprises time, volume, time and volume, or detection order”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine dynamic market data filtering of Callaway with enhancing implied orders of Milne because enhanced implied orders improves dynamic market data filtering by “[c]ombining the small improvements from two or more real orders can result in a big improvement in the implied order”, see Milne, para. 11.
As to claims 6 and 19, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Callaway does not teach,
determining, based on which plurality of factors satisfied the dynamic condition, an order in which the subset of stored data will be transmitted.
however, Milne teaches,
determining, based on which plurality of factors satisfied the dynamic condition, an order in which the subset of stored data will be transmitted (para. 73 “The price of this edge is the price of the best bid or ask in the contract side corresponding to the node pair. The volume of the edge is the total volume in the orders at the best price level. The time priority of the edge is the time priority of the earliest order in the best price level, also referred to as the front-of-queue order”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine dynamic market data filtering of Callaway with enhancing implied orders of Milne because enhanced implied orders improves dynamic market data filtering by “[c]ombining the small improvements from two or more real orders can result in a big improvement in the implied order”, see Milne, para. 11.
Claims 7-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callaway in view of US 20060047590 A1 (Anderson).
As to claims 7 and 20, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Callaway does not teach,
wherein the dynamic condition is determined to be satisfied when it is determined that the change in the current state of the transaction processing system will cause a recipient to submit a subsequent transaction request to the transaction processing system.
however, Anderson teaches,
wherein the dynamic condition is determined to be satisfied when it is determined that the change in the current state of the transaction processing system will cause a recipient to submit a subsequent transaction request to the transaction processing system (para. 95 “notify the trader that a condition or risk profile condition has been met or that another factor leading to the immediate recommendation that a trade be executed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine dynamic market data filtering of Callaway with risk management of Anderson because risk management enhances dynamic market data filtering by “automatically load[ing] the alert function based upon me stop-loss and/or take-profit recommendations”, see Anderson, para. 57.
As to claim 8, Callaway teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 7.
Callaway does not teach,
wherein the subset of stored data further comprises only the stored data indicative of the change in the current state of the transaction processing system.
however, Anderson teaches,
wherein the subset of stored data further comprises only the stored data indicative of the change in the current state of the transaction processing system (para. 95 “notify the trader …”, para. 94 “accept real-time data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine dynamic market data filtering of Callaway with risk management of Anderson because risk management enhances dynamic market data filtering by “automatically load[ing] the alert function based upon me stop-loss and/or take-profit recommendations”, see Anderson, para. 57.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 May 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights