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 Final office action is in response to the application filed on January 16, 2024 and the response to the Non-Final rejection filed on September 26, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent product Claim 11 and system Claim 20. Claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving, via a communication interface of an electronic trading system, a plurality of incoming electronic data messages in a reception order; providing, to a processing pipeline executing on a processor, the plurality of incoming electronic data messages for attempted execution of one or more requests within the incoming electronic data messages, the processing pipeline including a plurality of processing components; processing, by the processing pipeline executing on the processor, the plurality of incoming electronic data messages, such that a transaction processing task for each of the plurality of incoming electronic data messages dwells at each of the plurality of processing components for a respective dwell time, the respective dwell time including at least a processing time for the incoming electronic data message for the respective processing component of the plurality of processing components; increasing, at a first component of the plurality of processing components and for at least a first one of the transaction processing tasks, a first respective dwell time via addition of a performance-modulation period for the at least first one of the transaction processing tasks, the performance-modulation period establishing, at least in part, an adjusted performance level for the first component of the plurality of processing components, the adjusted performance level different from a base performance level associated with the respective processing time for the first one of the transaction processing tasks at the first component of the plurality of processing components; and sending, at a time the at least first one of the transaction processing tasks reaches an end of the processing pipeline executing on the processor, outgoing electronic data messages based on a transaction outcome associated with the at least first one of the transaction processing tasks.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Sending outgoing messages for transaction processing tasks in an electronic trading exchange 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 electronic trading system and processor in Claim 1, electronic trading system in Claim 11, and electronic trading system in claim 20 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The communication interface and processing pipeline including a plurality of processing components in Claims 1, 11, and 20 appears to be just software. Claims 11 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite electronic trading system and processor in Claim 1, electronic trading system in Claim 11, and electronic trading system in claim 20 and a communication interface and processing pipeline including a plurality of processing components in Claims 1, 11, and 20. The computer hardware is 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. Therefore claims 1, 11, and 20 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 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 Applicant’s specification para. [0093, 0104-0109] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. 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. Thus claims 1, 11, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 11, and 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-4 and 12-14 further define the adjusted performance level; Claims 5-8 and 15-18 further define the performance modulation period; Claims 9, 10, and 19 further define increases to the dwell time. 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 claims 2-10 and 12-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub. 2018/0075530 (Kavanagh et al. ‘530).
Re Claim 1: Kavanagh et al. ‘530 a computer-implemented method including: receiving, via a communication interface of an electronic trading system, a plurality of incoming electronic data messages in a reception order (paragraph [0027]); providing, to a processing pipeline executing on a processor, the plurality of incoming electronic data messages for attempted execution of one or more requests within the incoming electronic data messages, the processing pipeline including a plurality of processing components (paragraphs [0036, 0050]); processing, by the processing pipeline executing on the processor, the plurality of incoming electronic data messages, such that a transaction processing task for each of the plurality of incoming electronic data messages dwells at each of the plurality of processing components for a respective dwell time, the respective dwell time including at least a processing time for the incoming electronic data message for the respective processing component of the plurality of processing components (paragraphs [0070-0079, 0083-0087]; Figures 4, 5); increasing, at a first component of the plurality of processing components and for at least a first one of the transaction processing tasks, a first respective dwell time via addition of a performance-modulation period for the at least first one of the transaction processing tasks, the performance-modulation period establishing, at least in part, an adjusted performance level for the first component of the plurality of processing components, the adjusted performance level different from a base performance level associated with the respective processing time for the first one of the transaction processing tasks at the first component of the plurality of processing components (paragraphs [0084, 0085]; Figure 5); and sending, at a time the at least first one of the transaction processing tasks reaches an end of the processing pipeline executing on the processor, outgoing electronic data messages based on a transaction outcome associated with the at least first one of the transaction processing tasks (paragraph [0087]).
Re Claim 2: Kavanagh et al. ‘530 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the adjusted performance level is selected based on the first component of the plurality of processing components (paragraphs [0084, 0085]).
Re Claim 3: Kavanagh et al. ‘530 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the adjusted performance level includes application of the performance-modulation period to increase the first respective dwell time above a threshold dwell time (paragraphs [0084, 0085]).
Re Claim 4: Kavanagh et al. ‘530 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the adjusted performance level includes a pre-defined model performance curve; and the method further includes determining the performance-modulation period based on a percentile value associated with the respective processing time for the first one of the transaction processing tasks (Figures 9A, 9B; paragraphs [0106-0108]).
Re Claim 5: Kavanagh et al. ‘530 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that determining the performance modulation period based on the percentile value includes applying linear interpolation to the pre-defined model performance curve to divide the pre-defined model performance curve into percentile period buckets (paragraphs [0106-0108]; Figures 9A, 9B).
Re Claim 6: Kavanagh et al. ‘530 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that determining the performance modulation period based on the percentile value includes dynamic application of the pre-defined model performance curve to apply a continuous percentile value-based period curve (paragraphs [0106-0108]; Figures 9A, 9B).
Re Claim 7: Kavanagh et al. ‘530 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that the dynamic application of the pre-defined model performance curve includes applying a linearly interpolated period and/or a threshold dwell time at a time that the continuous percentile value-based period curve is being populated (paragraphs [0106-0108]; Figures 9A, 9B).
Re Claim 8: Kavanagh et al. ‘530 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that increasing the first respective dwell time includes applying the performance-modulation period at a performance-control buffer associated with the first component of the plurality of processing components (paragraphs [0106-0109]).
Re Claim 9: Kavanagh et al. ‘530 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including increasing another dwell time at a second component of the plurality of processing components for the at least first one of the transaction processing tasks based on another adjusted performance level different from the adjusted performance level for the first component of the plurality of processing components (paragraphs [0106-0109]).
Re Claim 10: Kavanagh et al. ‘530 disclose the method substantially as claimed, in supra, including that increasing the first respective dwell time includes holding initiation of processing of a next one of the transaction processing tasks at the first component of the plurality of processing components until the first respective dwell time for the at least first one of the transaction processing tasks completes (paragraphs [0083-0087]).
Re Claims 11-19: Machine-readable medium claims 11-19 are substantially similar to previously rejected method claims 1-9, and are therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale.
Re Claim 20: System claim 20 is substantially similar to previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 8-19) have been fully considered, however they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments try to establish eligibility through Office Examples (Remarks, pages 8-12), are not persuasive. Specifically, the Office Examples are meant to be for training purposes and do not have the force of legal precedent. Further, Example 39 is directed towards a method for training a neural network for facial recognition. “Prior methods suffer from the inability to robustly detect human faces in images where there are shifts, distortions, and variations in scale and rotation of the face pattern in the image. Applicant’s invention addresses this issue by using a combination of features to more robustly detect human faces. The first feature is the use of an expanded training set of facial images to train the neural network. This expanded training set is developed by applying mathematical transformation functions on an acquired set of facial images. These transformations can include affine transformations, for example, rotating, shifting, or mirroring or filtering transformations, for example, smoothing or contrast reduction. The neural networks are then trained with this expanded training set using stochastic learning with backpropagation which is a type of machine learning algorithm that uses the gradient of a mathematical loss function to adjust the weights of the network. Unfortunately, the introduction of an expanded training set increases false positives when classifying non-facial images. Accordingly, the second feature of applicant’s invention is the minimization of these false positives by performing an iterative training algorithm, in which the system is retrained with an updated training set containing the false positives produced after face detection has been performed on a set of non-facial images. This combination of features provides a robust face detection model that can detect faces in distorted images while limiting the number of false positives.” The claim was not found to recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerate in the 2019 PEG because, “the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. Further, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claim does not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Thus, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception.” However the present case is different, sending messages for transaction processing in an electronic trading exchange is in and of itself an abstract idea and in the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. Therefore, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicant’s argument citing Ex Parte Annakov (Remarks, pages 12-13), is acknowledged, however PTAB decisions do not represent Office Policy. PTAB decisions are not precedential and therefore, arguing PTAB decisions is not persuasive. Furthermore, PTAB decisions are specific to the fact pattern of the particular case and are therefore not applicable to the other applications.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in DDR, (Remarks, page 13), are not found persuasive. The claims in DDR were rooted in computer technology because they modified the way the internet functioned to address a problem that was created by the invention of the internet. DDR dealt with a problem unique to the Internet whereby owners of one web site did not want to redirect users away to a different web site. The claimed solution in DDR created a hybrid web page incorporating look and feel elements from the host web site with commerce objects from the third-party web site. This feature, which was neither a generic computer function nor a conventional network operation, qualified as an inventive concept. But Applicant’s claims do not address redirecting problems unique to the Internet and do not use hybrid web sites. So DDR has no applicability.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Bascom, (Remarks, pages 13-18), are not found persuasive. In Bascom, the court held that the inventive concept consisted of installing a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, the current claims to do not perform any such filtering action (or its equivalent) that is location specific and user specific. Further, the claims fail to set forth a specific combination of elements in specific locations but rather disclose known components functioning in their known capacity in their known locations. Hence, Bascom does not apply here.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to those found statutory in Enfish and TLI Communications, (Remarks, pages 14-18), are not found persuasive. In Enfish, the court found that the inventive concept was a new type of data structure called self-referential table to improve the storing and retrieving data in memory. The court described this as an improvement in the functioning of a computer. However, the current claims do not purport to creating or improving any data structure or a computer. Hence, Enfish does not apply.
Applicant’s arguments that the examiner has not met the burden of proof in accordance with the Berkheimer memo (Remarks, pages 18-19) are acknowledged. However, the Berkheimer memo sets forth that an examiner’s burden is met with, “A citation to an express statement in the prosecution or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a)” (Berkheimer Memo, page 3). To this end paragraphs [0093, 0104-0109] have been cited in the 35 USC 101 rejection, and therefore the examiner’s burden of proof has been met. Therefore, the claims are not found to include significantly more and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of the claims that, “nowhere does Kavanagh describe increasing dwell time” (Remarks, pages 20-21), are acknowledged. However, Kavanagh clearly sets forth the amount of time that a participant deems acceptable for a time increase (paragraphs [0269-0272]). Therefore, Kavanagh fully meets the aforementioned limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Lindsay Maguire
10/6/25
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619