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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the application filed on 2/19/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for prior priority dates including:
This application is a CON of 16/925,530 07/10/2020 PAT 11816730
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. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
All claims 21-34, 36-39, 41-48 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent 11,816,730. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims speak to systems and methods for receive a trade profile, transmitting, receive data via use pricing data received from equity exchange and execute trade. Regarding claim 1, the language within this claim can be found within claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,816,730.
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.
All claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
All claims 21-34, 36-39, 41-48 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 41 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 21 and product Claim 30 (herein called Additional Independent Claims). The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of
A proxy server apparatus configured to communicate with at least one computerized client device via a first communications channel of a communications network and a programmable hardware apparatus via a second communications channel of the communications network, the proxy server apparatus comprising: processor apparatus configured to (i) decompress protocol-specific compressed payloads received from the at least one computerized client device and (ii) translate the decompressed payloads into a lower-layer message for direct provision into hardware inputs of the programmable hardware apparatus via a direct physical connection; at least one interface apparatus in data communication with the processor apparatus and configured for data communication with the at least one computerized client device and a computerized hardware apparatus, wherein the at least one interface apparatus comprises (i) a first network interface configured to communicate with the at least one computerized client device using a QUIC transport protocol and (ii) a second interface configured for a direct physical connection to the programmable hardware apparatus via a local network; and computerized logic in data communication with the processor apparatus and configured to, when executed by the processor apparatus, cause the proxy server apparatus to: receive, via the at least one interface apparatus and from the at least one computerized client device, a trade execution profile indicative of (i) a trading equity of interest, (ii) at least one sequence of trades to be invoked with respect to the trading equity of interest and (iii) corresponding trigger conditions therefor, wherein the trade execution profile comprises hardware-executable trigger-condition data for configuring the programmable hardware apparatus to evaluate incoming trade requests using substantially real-time orderbook data; transmit, via the at least one interface apparatus and to the programmable hardware apparatus, programming data representative of the trade execution profile, the programmable hardware apparatus being configured to execute trade logic using the programming data and real-time data from at least one equities exchange, wherein the programmable hardware apparatus comprises an FPGA or ASIC; receive, from the at least one computerized client device, data representative of a trade request for a trade, the data representative of the trade request comprising an encoded compressed, protocol-specific payload that reduces latency over the communications network; and transmit, via the second communications channel, a control signal or message to the programmable hardware apparatus configured to cause the programmable hardware apparatus to evaluate the trade request in accordance with the programming data and via use of substantially real-time pricing data received from at least one equity exchange, the computerized hardware apparatus being further configured to execute the trade only if a calculated expected return for the trade meets or exceeds a threshold value.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “receive, from the at least one computerized client device, data representative of a trade request for a trade, the data representative of the trade request comprising an encoded compressed, protocol-specific payload that reduces latency over the communications network; and transmit a message” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “processor apparatus and configured for data communication with at least one computerized client device and a computerized hardware apparatus; and computerized logic in data communication with the processor apparatus” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The closest prior art Porat et al. (PGPUB 2010/0226455) teaches a methods and apparatus for closed loop operation of a wireless system implementing multiple input multiple output including receiving a payload including channel estimation information.
The closest prior art Zosin (PGPUB 2007/0299758 ) teaches a systems for optimizing a plurality of portfolios, each portfolio including one or more shares of one or more tradable assets, and may include the steps of: receiving asset data associated with the plurality of the portfolios; receiving one or more optimization constraints including at least one global constraint defining a constraint to be applied across an aggregate of the plurality of portfolios.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Answers to the arguments on the amended limitations which change the scope of the claims, will be addressed in the action above. Applicant's art arguments are considered moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Examiner has reviewed all of the amends on independent claims and canceled dependent claims.
Examiner has reviewed all of these amendments and new claims and examiner remains firm in the 101 rejection. The examiner remains firm that at the heart of the invention it is running a model using rules that calculates an outcome the way models would expect to do so and transmit a message which is the outcome of the model. The examiner respectfully argues the applicant is only just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. 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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights