DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
The Preliminary Amendment filed May 31, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-20 were canceled; and new claims 21-40 have been added. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 9,940,670, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,664,912, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,308,554, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,823,269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application encompass the same subject matter as the patented claims, but with obvious wording variations such as both sets of claims are drawn to provide coordinating transmission of one or more data sets to plurality of subscribers.
Claims 21-40 of current application is directed toward a system, method, and computer-readable medium or media for coordinating transmission of one or more data sets comprising market data to a plurality of subscribers, the system comprising at least one processor configured to: parse source instructions to prepare signals representing at least a portion of a data process to a plurality of networked computing resources, the data process including one or more data sets comprising information content and one or more networking parameters for communicating the information content from one or more computer systems associated with one or more of the subscribers associated with respective networked computing resources; associate, with the signals representing at least a portion of the data process, at least one timing parameter determined at least partly using one or more latencies associated with execution of signal exchanges associated with at least one of the networked computing resources; and route, in accordance with a timing sequence, the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computing resource, wherein the timing sequence is based on at least one associated timing parameter so as to cause synchronized arrival or processing of at least a portion of the data process at networked computer resources; wherein parsing the source instructions includes identifying a size of the one or more data sets; and wherein the at least one timing parameter is determined at least partly on a length of time to route at least a portion of the one or more data sets.
Claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 9,940,670 mentions parse source instructions to prepare signals representing instructions for execution of at least a portion of a data process executable by a plurality of networked computing resources, the data process including one or more data sets comprising market data and information content and one or more networking parameters for communicating the market data and information content from one or more computer systems associated with one or more of the subscribers associated with respective networked computing resources; associate, with the signals representing the instructions for execution of at least a portion of the data process, at least one timing parameter determined at least partly using one or more latencies associated with execution of signal processing requests by at least one of the networked computing resources; and using the at least one associated timing parameter, route, in accordance with a timing sequence, the signals representing instructions for execution of a portion of the data process to a networked computer resource; wherein the timing sequence for routing the signals is based on the at least one associated timing parameter so as to cause synchronized arrival or execution of signals representing instructions for execution of the portion of the data process at the networked computer resource with other portions of the proposed transaction at one or more other networked computing resources.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,664,912 mentions parse source instructions to prepare signals representing instructions for execution of at least a portion of a data process executable by a plurality of networked computing resources, the data process including one or more data sets comprising information content and one or more networking parameters for communicating the information content from one or more computer systems associated with one or more of the subscribers associated with respective networked computing resources; associate, with the signals representing the instructions for execution of at least a portion of the data process, at least one timing parameter determined at least partly using one or more latencies associated with execution of signal processing requests by at least one of the networked computing resources; and route, in accordance with a timing sequence, the signals representing instructions for execution of a portion of the data process to a networked computer resource; wherein the timing sequence for routing the signals is based on the at least one associated timing parameter so as to cause synchronized arrival or execution of signals representing instructions for execution of the portion of the data process at the networked computer resource with other portions of the proposed transaction at one or more other networked computing resources.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,308,554 mentions parse source instructions to prepare signals representing at least a portion of a data process to a plurality of networked computing resources, the data process including one or more data sets comprising information content and one or more networking parameters for communicating the information content from one or more computer systems associated with one or more of the subscribers associated with respective networked computing resources; associate, with the signals representing at least a portion of the data process, at least one timing parameter determined at least partly using one or more latencies associated with execution of signal exchanges associated with at least one of the networked computing resources; and route, in accordance with a timing sequence, the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computing resource, wherein each of the plurality of subscribers is associated with a tier, and wherein the timing sequence is based on at least one associated timing parameter so as to cause the synchronized arrival or processing of at least a portion of the data process at networked computer resources associated with subscribers in the same tier.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,823,269 mentions parse source instructions to prepare signals representing at least a portion of a data process to a plurality of networked computing resources, the data process including one or more data sets comprising information content and one or more networking parameters for communicating the information content from one or more computer systems associated with one or more of the subscribers associated with respective networked computing resources; associate, with the signals representing at least a portion of the data process, at least one timing parameter determined at least partly using one or more latencies associated with execution of signal exchanges associated with at least one of the networked computing resources; and route, in accordance with a timing sequence, the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computing resource, wherein each of the plurality of subscribers is associated with a tier, and wherein the timing sequence is based on at least one associated timing parameter so as to cause prioritized arrival or processing of at least a portion of the data process at networked computer resources based on the tier associated with respective subscribers.
As can be seen there are some differences between the claims; however, the differences are obvious and therefore, the claims are not patentably distinct from one another because the claims of the current application encompass the same subject matter as the patented claims.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21-40 are directed to the abstract idea of: Claim 21 -: 21. coordinating transmission- of one or more data sets comprising market data to a plurality of subscribers, comprising at least one- configured to: parse source instructions to prepare signals- representing at least a portion of a data process to a plurality-, the data process including one or more data sets comprising information content and one or more parameters for communicating- the information content from one or more- associated with one or more of the subscribers associated with respective resources-; associate, with the signals- representing at least a portion of the data process, at least one timing parameter determined at least partly using one or more latencies associated with execution of exchanges- associated with at least one of the resources-; and route-, in accordance with a timing sequence, the signals- representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computing resource, wherein the timing sequence is based on at least one associated timing parameter so as to cause synchronized arrival or processing of at least a portion of the data process at resources-; wherein parsing the source instructions includes identifying a size of the one or more data sets; and wherein the at least one timing parameter is determined at least partly on a length of time to route at least a portion of the one or more data sets. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 22 -: 22. claim 21, wherein the at least one timing parameter is determined based at least partly on at least one of: dynamically-monitored latency in execution of requests routed to at least one of the plurality of resources-; statistical latency in execution of requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of resources-; historical latency in execution of requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of resources-; and predictive latency in execution of requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of networked execution processors. Claim 23 -: 23. claim 21, wherein the information content includes market data. Claim 24 -: 24. claim 21, wherein each of the plurality of subscribers is associated with a tier of a plurality of tiers. Claim 25 -: 25. claim 21, wherein each of the plurality of subscribers is associated with a single tier. Claim 26 -: 26. claim 21, wherein the timing sequence is determined such that the prioritized arrival or processing of at least a portion of the data process is simultaneous; or is according to: a non-simultaneous sequence, or a determined relative timing. Claim 27 -: 27. claim 21, wherein the timing sequence is determined based on the at least one associated timing parameter so as to cause prioritized arrival or processing of: the start of the one or more data sets, the end of the one or more data sets, or a desired portion of the one or more data sets. Claim 28 -: 28. claim 21, wherein the source instructions are based on parameters defining at least one of: a time at which the signals- representing at least a portion of the data process to a resource- are routed-; and a frequency at which the signals- representing at least a portion of the data process to a resource- are routed-. Claim 29 -: 29. claim 21, wherein the at least one- is configured to receive- signals- from at least one of the plurality of resources- to detect whether the at least one of the plurality of resources- is manipulating network latency data. Claim 30 -: 30. claim 21, wherein the at... [id. at 22], communication delay, processing delay, or a latency probability model. Claim 31 -: 31. claim 21, wherein the information content is associated with financial interests including at least one of commodities, currency interests, equity interests, non-equity interests, or derivatives thereof. (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 32 -: 32. A method performed by executing interpretable instructions configured to cause the at least one- to: parse source instructions... associate, with... route-, in accordance... wherein parsing... wherein the at... [id. at 21], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 33 -: 33. The method of claim 32, wherein the at... dynamically-monitored... statistical latency... historical latency... predictive latency... [id. at 22], Claim 34 -: 34. The method of claim 32, wherein the information... [id. at 23], Claim 35 -: 35. The method of claim 32, wherein each of... [id. at 24], Claim 36 -: 36. The method of claim 32, wherein the timing... [id. at 26], Claim 37 -: 37. The method of claim 32, wherein the timing... [id. at 27], Claim 38 -: 38. The method of claim 32, wherein the source... a time at which... a frequency at... [id. at 28], Claim 39 -: 39. The method of claim 32, wherein the information... [id. at 31], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) Claim 40 -: 40. A readable programming configured to cause at least one- to: parse source instructions... associate, with... route-, in accordance... wherein parsing... wherein the at... [id. at 21], (fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). ) . The identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance: b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
These limitation excerpts, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the grouping(s) of abstract ideas of: Certain methods of organizing human activity – since: synchronized processing of data by networked computing resources; such as, systems, methods, and machine-interpretable programming or other instruction products for the management of data transmission by multiple networked computing resources; wherein in particular, the disclosure relates to the synchronization of related requests for transmitting data using distributed network resources as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as fundamental economic principles or practices, (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions, (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Mental processes – since: the above-underlined as recited in the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as concepts performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the limitations fall within the above-identified grouping(s) of abstract ideas.
While independent claims 21, 32, and 40 do not explicitly recite verbatim this identified abstract idea, the concept of this identified abstract idea is described by the steps of independent claim 21 and is described by the steps of independent claim 32 and is described by the steps of independent claim 40.
Claim 21: Particularly regarding the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 21 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "system", "transmission", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources". However, independent claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "system", "transmission", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources" of independent claim 21 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A system for coordinating transmission … one processor configured to", "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", "wherein parsing the source instructions … more data sets; and" and "wherein the at least one … or more data sets") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (2016) (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), and electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (updating an activity log); and the cited rationale have found the following type of activity to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 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). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 21 is ineligible.
Claim 32: Specifically with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 32 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "at least one data processor", "machine-interpretable", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources". However, independent claim 32 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "at least one data processor", "machine-interpretable", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources" of independent claim 32 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A method performed by at … least one processor to", "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", "wherein parsing the source instructions … more data sets; and" and "wherein the at least one … or more data sets") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. Additionally, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 21 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 32 is ineligible.
Claim 40: Particularly with respect to the analysis under Step 2A of the Office's § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, independent claim 40 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of "computer-readable", "medium or media", "non-transient machine-readable programming structures", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources". However, independent claim 40 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application because "computer-readable", "medium or media", "non-transient machine-readable programming structures", "at least one processor", "signals", "a plurality of networked computing resources", "networked computing resources", "networking", "communicating", "one or more computer systems", "signal exchanges", "route", and "networked computer resources" of independent claim 40 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality that perform functions ("A computer-readable medium or media … least one processor to", "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", "wherein parsing the source instructions … more data sets; and" and "wherein the at least one … or more data sets") that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or that recite generic computer and/or field of use functions that are recited at a high-level of generality that include only steps narrowing the abstract idea [Step 2A Prong I] (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method steps comprise or include: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, [Step 2A Prong II] adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- see MPEP 2106.05(f) (all or portions of the noted step(s)), and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception -- see MPEP 2106.05(g) (all or portions of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources" step(s)), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -- see MPEP 2106.05(h) (all or portions of the noted step(s)). Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claim 21 also applies hereto. Furthermore, the additional method steps comprise or include: reciting additional elements in implementing the abstract idea that do not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea because they comprise or include well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. all or portion(s) of the "parse source instructions to prepare … respective networked computing resources", "associate, with the signals representing … networked computing resources; and", "route, in accordance with a … at networked computer resources", (insignificant extra-solution activity) steps), see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, and/or that are otherwise not significant toward constituting any inventive concept beyond the abstract idea. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) See discussion above regarding Claim 21 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claim 40 is ineligible.
Independent Claims: Nothing in independent claims 21, 32, and 40 improves another technology or technical field, improves the functioning of any claimed computer device itself, applies the abstract idea with any particular machine, solves any computer problem with a computer solution, or includes any element that may otherwise be considered to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
None of the dependent claims 22-31 and 33-39 when separately considered with each dependent claim's corresponding parent claim overcomes the above analysis because none presents any method step not directed to the abstract idea that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception or any physical structure that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 22 and 33: Dependent claims 22 and 33 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "signal processing" of dependent claims 22 and 33 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 28 and 38: Dependent claims 28 and 38 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "networked computer resource are routed" of dependent claims 28 and 38 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in these claims taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 29: Dependent claim 29 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, "receive" of dependent claim 29 recite generic computer and/or field of use components pertaining to the particular technological environment that are recited a high-level of generality. No additional element introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 22 and 33: Dependent claims 22 and 33 add an additional method step of "wherein the at least one timing parameter is determined based at least partly on at least one of", "dynamically-monitored latency in execution of signal processing requests routed to at least one of the plurality of networked computing resources", "statistical latency in execution of signal processing requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of networked computing resources", "historical latency in execution of signal processing requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of networked computing resources; and", "predictive latency in execution of signal processing requests routed to the at least one of the plurality of networked execution processors". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 22 and 33 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 22 and 33 are ineligible.
Claims 23 and 34: Dependent claims 23 and 34 add an additional method step of "wherein the information content includes market data". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 23 and 34 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 23 and 34 are ineligible.
Claims 24 and 35: Dependent claims 24 and 35 add an additional method step of "wherein each of the plurality of subscribers is associated with a tier of a plurality of tiers". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 24 and 35 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 24 and 35 are ineligible.
Claim 25: Dependent claim 25 adds an additional method step of "wherein each of the plurality of subscribers is associated with a single tier". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 25 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 25 is ineligible.
Claims 26 and 36: Dependent claims 26 and 36 add an additional method step of "wherein the timing sequence is determined such that the prioritized arrival or processing of … simultaneous; or is according to: a non-simultaneous sequence, or a determined relative timing". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 26 and 36 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 26 and 36 are ineligible.
Claims 27 and 37: Dependent claims 27 and 37 add an additional method step of "wherein the timing sequence is determined based on the at least one associated timing … data sets, or a desired portion of the one or more data sets". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 27 and 37 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 27 and 37 are ineligible.
Claims 28 and 38: Dependent claims 28 and 38 add an additional method step of "wherein the source instructions are based on parameters defining at least one of", "a time at which the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computer resource are routed; and", "a frequency at which the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computer resource are routed". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 28 and 38 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, and the additional elements do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and the additional elements do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (E.g. The above-italicized grounds of rejection apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) For example regarding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the cited rationale have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed or as insignificant extra-solution activity: receiving or transmitting data over a network, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., (2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014), see previous legal citations herein Re: Claim 21, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the "a time at which the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computer resource are routed; and", "a frequency at which the signals representing at least a portion of the data process to a networked computer resource are routed" steps. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 28 and 38 are ineligible.
Claim 29: Dependent claim 29 adds an additional method step of "wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive signals from at least … one of the plurality of networked computing resources is manipulating network latency data". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 29 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited step) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claim 21 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 28 and 38 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step.) See discussion above regarding Claim 28 and 38 for pertinent previously cited rationale finding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, pertaining to all or portion(s) of the noted recited step. No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 29 is ineligible.
Claim 30: Dependent claim 30 adds an additional method step of "wherein the at least one timing parameter is determined based at least partly on at least one of", "communication delay, processing delay, or a latency probability model". However, the additional method step of dependent claims 30 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claim 30 is ineligible.
Claims 31 and 39: Dependent claims 31 and 39 add an additional method step of "wherein the information content is associated with financial interests including at least one of commodities, currency interests, equity interests, non-equity interests, or derivatives thereof". However, the additional method step of dependent claim 31 and 39 is directed to the abstract idea noted above and does not otherwise alter the analysis presented above, and do not integrate the exception into a practical application, because the additional method step merely perform, conduct, carry out, and/or implement the abstract idea itself and/or only narrows the abstract idea (e.g. all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps) and/or because the additional method step comprises or includes: evaluated additional elements individually and in combination for which the courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application, as previously discussed regarding Claims 22 and 33 above. Regarding Step 2B treatment of the evaluated additional elements individually and in combination, the same previously-stated legal authority and/or rationale supporting the grounds of rejection applied to the above Claims 22 and 33 also applies hereto. (E.g. These previously-stated grounds of rejection that were italicized when applied to the referenced previous Claim(s) apply at least to all or portion(s) of the noted recited steps.) No additional step introduced in this claim taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, dependent claims 31 and 39 are ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
§101 Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPGPub No. US 20020138553 A1 by Binder, Garry C. discloses Apparatus and method for asymmetric electronic commerce transactions ; wherein: a networked computing apparatus having a business message sender component coupled to a network interface, the network interface not being coupled to an always-active listening component; and a processing component coupled to the sender component to process a business message or a polling request for transfer to another networked computing apparatus is disclosed.
USPGPub No. US 20050050386 A1 by Reinhardt, Steven K. et al. discloses Hardware recovery in a multi-threaded architecture.
USPGPub No. US 20090049443 A1 by Powers; John et al. discloses Multicore Distributed Processing System.
USPGPub No. US 20080294332 A1 by LEVANON; Issac et al. discloses Method for Image Based Navigation Route Corridor For 3D View on Mobile Platforms for Mobile Users.
USPGPub No. US 20090171950 A1 by Lunenfeld; Harvey discloses Metasearching A Client's Request For Displaying Different Order Books On The Client.
USPGPub No. US 20100138688 A1 by Sykes; Edward A. et al. discloses MANAGING SERVICE LEVELS ON A SHARED NETWORK.
USPGPub No. US 20040167840 A1 by Tully, Michael James et al. discloses System and method for the automated brokerage of financial instruments.
USPGPub No. US 20040030611 A1 by Byrne, Patrick discloses Collaborative commerce hub.
USPGPub No. US 20080127200 A1 by Richards; Andrew et al. discloses TECHNIQUES FOR PROGRAM EXECUTION.
USPGPub No. US 20070156786 A1 by May; Dawn Marie et al. discloses Method and apparatus for managing event logs for processes in a digital data processing system.
USPGPub No. US 20100050182 A1 by Mintz; Alexander et al. discloses PARALLEL PROCESSING SYSTEM.
USPGPub No. US 20010051910 A1 by Snelgrove, William Martin et al. discloses System and method for conducting an auction over a communications network.
USPGPub No. US 20090119729 A1 by Periman; Stephen G. et al. discloses Method for multicasting views of real-time streaming interactive video.
USPGPub No. US 20060047591 A1 by Snouffer; Bradley D. discloses Method of capitalizing a distributed business entity and allocating profits thereof.
USPGPub No. US 20040085898 A1 by Gass, Raymond discloses Method for evaluating the quality of service of a telecommunication link via a network.
USPGPub No. US 20060268934 A1 by Shimizu; Takao et al. discloses Multicast control technique using MPLS.
USPGPub No. US 20070226135 A1 by Yamada; Kazuki et al. discloses Monetary Terminal Processing Server, Monetary Terminal Processing Method, Monetary Terminal, Arithmetic Instruction Input and Amount Change Information Input Unit.
USPGPub No. US 20030151619 A1 by McBride, Edmund Joseph discloses System for analyzing network load and other characteristics of an executable application.
USPGPub No. US 20070204137 A1 by Tran; Thang discloses Multi-threading processors, integrated circuit devices, systems, and processes of operation and manufacture.
USPGPub No. US 20040025161 A1 by Chauvel, Gerard et al. discloses Concurrent task execution in a multi-processor, single operating system environment.
USPGPub No. US 20060080389 A1 by Powers; John T. et al. discloses Distributed processing system.
USPGPub No. US 20040268354 A1 by Kanai, Tatsunori et al. discloses Method and system for performing real-time operation using processors.
USPGPub No. US 20070240160 A1 by Paterson-Jones; Roland et al. discloses Managing execution of programs by multiple computing systems.
USPGPub No. US 20030177187 A1 by Levine, David A. et al. discloses Computing grid for massively multi-player online games and other multi-user immersive persistent-state and session-based applications.
USPGPub No. US 20130159021 A1 by Felsher; David Paul discloses INFORMATION RECORD INFRASTRUCTURE, SYSTEM AND METHOD.
USPAT No. US 7487125 B2 to Littlewood; Margaret G. discloses Method for providing aggregation of trading on multiple alternative trading systems.
USPAT No. US 7392218 B2 to Saliba; Anthony J. discloses Method and apparatus for stock and index option price improvement, participation, and internalization.
USPAT No. US 7822728 B1 to Chandler; Richard G. et al. discloses Metadata pipelining and optimization in a file server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLADE E. SMITH whose telephone number is 571- 272-8645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Matthew S. Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/SLADE E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 05/11/2026
Prosecution Insights