DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 1/17/2024.
3. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,915,316 (formerly application 18/054,506).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1 and 10 (the independent claims) of the instant application 18/415,435 differ from Claims 1 and 10 (the independent claims) of U.S. Patent No. 11,915,316 (formerly application 18/054,506) through the elimination of claim limitations, specifically the elimination of the claim limitations pertain to the calculation of a mid price based on a highest bid price of the plurality of bid prices and a lowest ask price of the plurality of ask prices.
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 are rejected based upon their dependency to Claims 1 and 10.
4. No Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s claims have overcome the prior art of record.
Specifically, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitations of:
converting the order book data into data in tensor form having a first axis of times at certain time intervals and a second axis of prices in units of tick, wherein the data in tensor form includes one or more 2D data items having data for a quantity for each of the plurality of ask prices or data for a quantity for each of the plurality of bid prices as values for each of a plurality of coordinates defined according to the times on the first axis and the prices on the second axis; (as in Claim 1).
Substantially similar limitations are present in all independent claims.
The prior art does not teach converting order book data into tensor form for representation on a two-dimensional graph, wherein the graph has a first axis for time and a second axis for price, prices being measured in price per units of tick.
No further prior art has been asserted against the claimed invention
Examiner notes that the claimed invention converts order book data into a two-dimensional representation to address technological problems pertaining to training machine learning models utilizing table-based data. See specification, para. 4-5. As such, the claimed invention demonstrates an integration of the judicial exception (i.e., creation of a two-dimensional graph to represent order book or financial data) into a practical application by improving the functioning of a computer, or improving other technology (e.g., machine-learning models) or technical field, satisfying Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines.
5. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached at (571)270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 December 22, 2025