1. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 10/20/2023.
3. Information Disclosure Statement
The following is a quotation of 37 CFR 1.98 regarding the contents of an information disclosure statement:
(b)(5) Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, data and place of publication.
Reference(s) NPL 36 and 50 from the 40-page IDS filed 1/11/2024 fail to include an appropriate date. MPEP §609 states that the date of publication supplied must include at least a month and a year of publication except that the year of publication (without the month) will be accepted if the applicant points out in the information disclosure statement that the year of the publication is sufficiently earlier that the effective U.S. filing date and any foreign priority date so that the particular month of publication is not an issue. As the references noted above fail to have an appropriate date, a statement is required by applicant indicating that the references are admitted prior art in order to be considered.
4. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 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 MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
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).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
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 §2111.04(II). 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.
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 MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
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.
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. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
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 italicized, underlined and boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
a trading platform, the trading platform configured to receive and process streaming financial market data, the trading platform comprising:
a host system, the host system comprising a host processor and host memory;
a ticker plant engine, wherein the ticker plant engine is deployed on a (1) a reconfigurable logic device, (2) a graphics processor unit (GPU), and/or (3) a chip multi- processor (CMP);
an order management engine, wherein the order management engine is deployed on a (1) a reconfigurable logic device, (2) a GPU, and/or (3) a CMP; and
a peer-to-peer hardware interconnect configured to interconnect the ticker plant engine and the order management engine; and
wherein the ticker plant engine is configured to communicate normalized financial market data to the order management engine via the peer-to-peer hardware interconnect without using the host processor and without using the host memory.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. For example, the claims do not recite that the system is normalizing the financial market data. As such, whether the data has been normalized in the past, or is even financial market data, is not involved in the steps recited as being performed by the system. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 4, 5 and 17 have similar issues.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
a trading platform, the trading platform configured to receive and process streaming financial market data, the trading platform comprising:
a host system, the host system comprising a host processor and host memory;
a ticker plant engine, wherein the ticker plant engine is deployed on a (1) a reconfigurable logic device, (2) a graphics processor unit (GPU), and/or (3) a chip multi- processor (CMP);
an order management engine, wherein the order management engine is deployed on a (1) a reconfigurable logic device, (2) a GPU, and/or (3) a CMP.
The Courts have stated that where claim limitations recite a series of alternative limitations, the prior art need only disclose one of the alternatives to anticipate. See MPEP §2131, citing Brown v. 3M, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As such, prior art utilized to reject one alternative limitation would also reject all other alternative limitations, regardless of whether the prior art addressed the other alternative limitations.
Therefore, further claim limitations that depended upon the alternative limitations rejected, although not addressed by the prior art would also be rejected, as the basis of their dependency was rejected.
Claims 7, 8, 19 and 20 have issues based upon their dependency to Claim 1.
Claim 10 recites a system wherein the order management engine comprises a market view component, the market view component configured to ingest the normalized financial market data and provide a current market view to other components within the order management engine, the current market view comprising a current view of pricing and liquidity in one or more financial markets for one or more financial instruments.
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. For example, the claims do not recite that the market view component is determining pricing and liquidity, and presenting those determinations. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the market view component is just presenting data, data which happens to comprise a current view of pricing and liquidity. Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the normalized financial market data is a current view of pricing and liquidity in one or more financial markets for one or more financial instruments, and the financial market data is passing through the market view component. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 11-14 and 16 have similar issues.
5. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a system configured to:
… receive and process streaming financial data … comprising … a ticker plant [entity and] an order management [entity] … wherein the ticker plant [entity] is configured to communicate normalized financial market data to the order management [entity] …
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to communicate financial market data which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a court-provided example of a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a platform (Claim(s) 1), a host system comprising a host processor and a host memory (Claim(s) 1), engine(s) deployed on a reconfigurable logic device, a graphics processor unit (GPU), and/or a chip multi-processor (CMP) (Claim(s) 1), and a peer-to-peer hardware interconnect (Claim(s) 1).
The claimed invention does 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. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-20 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Dependent Claim(s) recite additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a shared memory (Claim(s) 2), a software application (Claim(s) 5 and 17), a hardware-software interconnect channel (Claim(s) 5), and field programmable gate array(s) (FPGAs) (Claim(s) 5, 7 and 8).
In each case, the additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality such that these additional element(s) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Walsky (US PG Pub. 2008/0097893) in view of Morein (US PG Pub. 2009/0248941).
Regarding Claim 1, Walsky discloses a system comprising:
a trading platform, the trading platform configured to receive and process streaming financial market data (pricing data from external broker/exchange and other pricing data) (see fig. 2; para. 72), the trading platform comprising:
a host system (server), the host system comprising a host processor (CPU) and host memory. (see para. 35);
a ticker plant engine (computer module generating a consolidated price feed). (see fig. 2; para. 36 and 72); and
an order management engine (computer module that implements a routing strategy). (see fig. 2; para. 7).
Walsky does not teach a system wherein the engine(s) are deployed on a (1) a reconfigurable logic device, (2) a graphics processor unit (GPU), and/or (3) a chip multi- processor (CMP); or a peer-to-peer hardware interconnect configured to interconnect the first engine and the second engine, wherein the first engine is configured to communicate data to the second engine via the peer-to-peer hardware interconnect without using the host processor and without using the host memory.
Morein discloses a system comprising:
a platform, the platform configured to receive and process data, the platform comprising:
a host system, the host system comprising a host processor (CPU) and host memory (system memory). (see fig. 3);
a first engine (GPU0), wherein the first engine is deployed on a (1) a reconfigurable logic device, (2) a graphics processor unit (GPU), and/or (3) a chip multi- processor (CMP). (see fig. 3);
a second engine (GPU1), wherein the second engine is deployed on a (1) a reconfigurable logic device, (2) a GPU (GPU), and/or (3) a CMP. (see fig. 3); and
a peer-to-peer hardware interconnect (direct bus) configured to interconnect the first engine (GPU0) and the second engine (GPU1). (see fig. 3); and
wherein the first engine (GPU0) is configured to communicate data to the second engine via the peer-to-peer hardware interconnect (direct bus) without using the host processor (CPU) and without using the host memory (system memory). (see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walsky to incorporate the computer architecture of Morein, thereby obtaining the speed and efficiency of a peer-to-peer interconnect linking the engines.
Regarding Claim 2, Walsky does not teach a system wherein the ticker plant engine is configured to communicate the normalized financial market data to the order management engine by writing the normalized financial market data to a shared memory via the peer-to-peer hardware interconnect without using the host processor and without using the host memory, wherein the shared memory is shared between the ticker plant engine and the order management engine.
Morein discloses a system wherein the ticker plant engine (GPU0) is configured to communicate the normalized financial market data to the order management engine (GPU1) by writing the normalized financial market data to a shared memory (peer memory) via the peer-to-peer hardware interconnect (direct bus) without using the host processor (CPU) and without using the host memory (system memory), wherein the shared memory (peer memory) is shared between the ticker plant engine (GPU0) and the order management engine (GPU1). (see fig. 3; para. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walsky and Morein to incorporate the computer architecture of Morein, thereby obtaining the speed and efficiency of shared memory.
Regarding Claim 3, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Regarding Claim 4, Walsky discloses a system wherein the trading platform comprises:
a trading strategy offload engine (computer module serving as an order router, routing an order based upon the routing strategy).
Walsky does not teach a system wherein the trading strategy offload engine is deployed on (1) a reconfigurable logic device, (2) a GPU, and/or (3) a CMP; wherein the peer-to-peer hardware interconnect is further configured to interconnect the ticker plant engine and the trading strategy offload engine; wherein the ticker plant engine is configured to communicate normalized financial market data to the trading strategy offload engine by writing the normalized financial market data to a shared memory with the trading strategy offload engine via the peer-to-peer hardware interconnect without using the host processor and without using the host memory.
Morein discloses a system wherein the platform comprises:
engine(s) (special purpose processors) deployed on deployed on (1) a reconfigurable logic device, (2) a GPU, and/or (3) a CMP. (see abstract; fig. 3);
wherein the peer-to-peer hardware interconnect (direct bus) configured to interconnect the engine(s) (special purpose processors or GPUs). (see fig. 3); and
wherein the engine(s) (special purpose processors) are configured to communicate data to other engine(s) by writing the data to a shared memory (peer memory) via the peer-to-peer interconnect (direct bus) without using the host processor (CPU) and without using the host memory (system memory). (see fig. 3; para. 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Morein by duplicating claim elements contained in Morein (e.g., the first special processor and second special processor) to create additional claim elements (e.g., a third special processor) wherein each additional claim element would serve the same function as the original claim element. In the combination each element, original element and additional element, would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walsky and Morein to incorporate the computer architecture of Morein, thereby obtaining the speed and efficiency of a peer-to-peer interconnect linking the engines.
Regarding Claim 5, Walsky discloses a system (client computer) wherein the host processor (CPU) is configured to execute a trading strategy via a software application (client software) (see para. 38), the trading platform further comprising:
a shared memory (memory) between the ticker plant engine and the trading strategy software application. (see para. 38); and
a hardware-software interconnect channel configured to interconnect the trading strategy software application and the trading strategy offload engine (order router);
wherein the ticker plant engine is further configured to write normalized financial market data (consolidated price feed) to the shared memory (memory) between the ticker plant engine and the trading strategy software application. (see para. 38 and 55);
wherein the trading strategy software application is configured to (1) read the normalized financial market data from the shared memory between the ticker plant engine and the trading strategy software application, (2) offload a portion of the trading strategy to the trading strategy offload engine via the hardware-software interconnect channel, and (3) execute the trading strategy based on the read normalized financial market data and an interaction with the trading strategy offload engine via the hardware-software interconnect channel. (see abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Regarding Claim 9, Walsky discloses a system wherein the order management engine is configured to (1) process a plurality of orders relating to a plurality of financial instruments based on a plurality of inputs, and (2) integrate at least two members of the group consisting of an order validation operation, a routing strategy operation (order routing strategy), a position blotter operation, and an order entry optimization (optimize the order processing) to thereby process the orders. (see para. 9 and 10).
Regarding Claim 10, Walsky discloses wherein the order management engine comprises a market view component, the market view component configured to ingest the normalized financial market data (from order books, exchanges and brokers) and provide a current (live) market view (market data feed) to other components within the order management engine, the current market view comprising a current view of pricing (pricing data) and liquidity in one or more financial markets for one or more financial instruments. (see para. 3, 26 and 43).
Regarding Claims 11-14, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Regarding Claim 15, Walsky discloses a system wherein the order management engine comprises a memory configured to store the current market view. (see para. 35).
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, such claim(s) recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claim(s) and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claim(s).
Regarding Claim 18, Walsky discloses a system wherein the order management engine is configured to track order states on a per-instrument basis using instrument keys that directly index the order states and uniquely identify the financial instruments associated with the orders, wherein the instrument keys comprise index numbers assigned by the ticker plant engine. (see para. 105).
Claims 7, 8, 19 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walsky and Morein, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Irturk (US PG Pub. 2012/0065956).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Walsky does not teach a system wherein the ticker plant engine and the order management engine are each offloaded from the host system and deployed on one or more field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs); or deployed on different FPGAs.
Morein discloses a system wherein the engine(s) are each offloaded from the host system (CPU) and deployed on one or more special processors; and deployed on different special processors. (see fig. 3; abstract).
Irturk discloses a system wherein the engine(s) are deployed on one or more field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). (see para. 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walsky and Morein to incorporate FPGAs, as disclosed by Irturk, as FPGAs are a standard and conventional processor.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Walsky does not teach a system wherein the ticker plant engine and/or the order management engine are deployed on one or more GPUs or CMPs.
Morein discloses a system wherein the engine(s) are each deployed on one or more special processors. (see fig. 3; abstract).
Irturk discloses a system wherein the engine(s) are deployed on one or more GPUs and CMPs (see para. 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Walsky and Morein to incorporate GPUs and CMPs as disclosed by Irturk, as GPUs and CMPs are standard and conventional processors.
7. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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 D. DONLON can be reached on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
February 15, 2026