DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21: “transferring to a central processor the identifier…” should read “transferring to a central processor the unique identifier…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5, 7 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the batch of orders” there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation because it is uncertain whether the limitations refers to the first or second batch.” For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “the first batch”.
Claim 5 recites “the time of processing” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “a time of processing”.
Claim 7 recites “synchronizing the time of a first exchange…” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “synchronizing a time of a first exchange…”
Claim 21 recites “orders in the batch”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the bolded limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “orders in the first batch”. Claim 21 also recites “the source node of the data packet”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the bolded limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “a source node of the data packet”.
Claim 22 recites “the exchanges”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “exchanges”.
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 1-7 and 21-23 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.
Claim 1/23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “creating a first batch of orders by accumulating exchange orders received within a first time period, TP1; creating a second batch of orders by accumulating exchange orders received within a second time period, TP2; and processing the orders from the first batch within the second time period, TP2”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for 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) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 does not disclose any limitations that would be considered additional elements. Claim 21 discloses an article of manufacture comprising a computer readable medium. The additional limitation in claim 21 is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element (claim 21) is nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 2-5/7 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 6 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (network is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 21 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (central processor, source node and data packets are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 22 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (data communication network is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Furthermore, as to claim 23, the claim is directed towards a computer readable medium. Applicant's specification does not explicitly disclose that the medium is not a propagated signal. Therefore, it is not clear from the specification if the computer readable medium includes carrier waves/signals. In order to overcome this rejection, the Office recommends amending the claims so that they recite only non-transitory media (see USPTO Notice 1351 OG 212).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing (US 2010/0076887) in view of Kotlyar (US 9110726).
As per claim 1/23, Cushing discloses a method for synchronous processing exchange orders, comprising:
creating a first batch of orders by accumulating exchange orders received within a first time period, TP1 (paragraph 26, “0026] In general, the markets that have recognized the special nature of trades performed either at market openings or market closings have instituted specialized, or differentiated, protocols for trades occurring at these times. Commonly, these special protocols have come in the form of a call or batch auction. Each iteration of a batch auction (or an "auction cycle") is typified in that a series of investors simultaneously trade, i.e., buy or sell, a stock at a single price.”, paragraph 30, “[0030] Another embodiment of the present invention comprises an electronic system for conducting batch auctions of securities. Such a system can be comprised of a computer network designed to accept a plurality of orders from a variety of sources. At a predetermined time, all current orders are crossed according to a preset algorithm to determine a share price and quantity for each security being traded. A trade of shares in an amount equal to the quantity is automatically executed by the system, and then fairly allocated to each order source. Such a system is preferably connected to one or more ECNs such that non-executed shares can be automatically sent to outside sources for execution and to ensure compliance with "trade-through" rules.”, paragraph 38, “[0038] A batch auction cycle of the present invention is comprised of three sequential periods: an order acceptance period, a price discovery period, and an order execution period. During the order acceptance period, the system accepts orders from qualified participants. The definition of a qualified participant will vary as is known in the art depending on how the system is implemented, as well as on the types of financial instruments traded and the country in which it is operated. This definition will often depend on whether the system is implemented as a facility of an established market or exchange. In this case, who are deemed qualified participants will likely be defined or limited by the exchange's rules.”);
creating a second batch of orders by accumulating exchange orders received within a second time period, TP2 (paragraph 26, 30 and 38);
However, Cushing discloses batching exchange orders in discrete time windows and does not disclose but Kotlyar discloses processing the orders from the first batch within the second time period, TP2 (7:23-33, “As a result, in one example, stage B will be reading the data for count n while stage A will be writing the data for count n+1. For the sake of efficiency, it is desirable for both the reading and writing operations to proceed simultaneously or in parallel. Of course, when performing the reading and writing operations simultaneously, it is desirable to avoid a situation where stage A overwrites the data being read by stage B before stage B has read all of the data. As should be appreciated by those skilled in the art, a technique referred to as "double-buffering" addresses this problem.”, 19:43-46, “(121) As may be appreciated by those skilled in the art, the stages 32, 34, the teams 35, 38, and the gangs 40, 42 may overlap with one another, either partially or completely, depending upon the processing required for a particular sequence of work items. Other variations are also contemplated.” The system of Kotlyar discloses overlapping pipelines stages where one stage the data is accumulated/read simultaneously while the data is being processed in another stage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Kotlyar in the teaching of Cushing, in order improve throughput and reduce latency (please see Kotlyar 3:36-45).
As per claim 2, Cushing in view of Kotlyar discloses all the limitation of claim 1. Cushing does not disclose but Kotlyar discloses wherein the accumulation of the first batch and processing of he second batch start or stop at the same time (7:23-33, “As a result, in one example, stage B will be reading the data for count n while stage A will be writing the data for count n+1. For the sake of efficiency, it is desirable for both the reading and writing operations to proceed simultaneously or in parallel. Of course, when performing the reading and writing operations simultaneously, it is desirable to avoid a situation where stage A overwrites the data being read by stage B before stage B has read all of the data. As should be appreciated by those skilled in the art, a technique referred to as "double-buffering" addresses this problem.”, 19:43-46, “(121) As may be appreciated by those skilled in the art, the stages 32, 34, the teams 35, 38, and the gangs 40, 42 may overlap with one another, either partially or completely, depending upon the processing required for a particular sequence of work items. Other variations are also contemplated.” The system teaches a parallel pipeline with double buffering so that one stage reads results while the next stage writes new data. In other words, as soon as one batch has begun processing (stage b reading batch n), the next batch accumulation (stage A writing batch n+1) starts immediately in parallel) (please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale)
As per claim 3, Cushing in view of Kotlyar discloses all the limitation of claim 1. Cushing does not disclose but Kotlyar discloses wherein the accumulation of the first batch and processing of he second batch start or stop at the same time for a plurality of exchanges (7:23-33, 19:43-46, the same pipelined scheduling idea applies independently for each multiple parallel pipelines or “exchanges”. The reference describes a buffer large enough to hold two batches and alternates between them. This show that at each count, one half of the buffer is accumulating new data while the other half is being processed, and then they swap. In practice, the same technique could be used on each exchange channel in a multi exchange system (i.e. each exchange has it own double buffer so that new orders are accumulated on one side while prior orders are processed on the other. Please see MPEP 2144.04(duplicating parts))(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 4, Cushing discloses passing they batch of orders synchronously through a processing pipe, one stage at a time, at a synchronized, clocked pace (paragraph 25, “A full iteration of the system, comprised sequentially of an order acceptance period, a price discovery period, and an order execution period, is referred to as an "auction cycle". Auction cycles according to the present invention operate at pre-determined times that are known to qualified auction participants, such as (but not limited to) traders.”)
As per claim 5, Cushing discloses starting accumulating exchange orders at exchanges at time t1;ending accumulating orders at exchanges at time t2; processing the accumulated exchange orders at exchanges at time t3; ending the processing of the accumulated exchange orders at exchanges at time t4; starting transferring execution confirmation for the processed orders at time t5; and ending transferring execution confirmation for the processed orders at time t6 (paragraph 29, “orders received during the order acceptance period are crossed according to a present price discovery algorithm being performed by a computer. Using the algorithm, the computer identifies an optimal price and allocation of trades. These trades are then executed at the optimal price and returned to the qualified participant during the subsequent order execution period.”, paragraph 48, “According to this algorithm, qualified participants who have submitted an order will not be allowed to cancel, reduce the quantity of, or make the price less aggressive than previously placed orders within a specified time window (the "order entry cut-off window") prior to the beginning of the price discovery period. (Modified orders seeking to increase quantity or make the price more aggressive are treated like a new order having the attributes of the order as modified.) This window just prior to the beginning of the price discovery period constitutes the second stage of the order acceptance period.”, paragraph 25, “A full iteration of the system, comprised sequentially of an order acceptance period, a price discovery period, and an order execution period, is referred to as an "auction cycle". Auction cycles according to the present invention operate at pre-determined times that are known to qualified auction participants, such as (but not limited to) traders.).
However, Cushing does not disclose but Kotlyar discloses synchronizing the time of processing (3:57-61, “(31) An aspect of the invention is to provide a method that includes rewriting the code for the stages and data objects to reflect the teams and gangs; and write code for communication for input and output data and for synchronization of the teams and gangs.”; 8:61-67, “In addition, the code for each stage may be partitioned into separate functions. Each function, then, may be invoked on a unique processor using an explicit pthread_create( ) call or its equivalent. With a shared-memory multi-processor, communication between the threads/stages may be effectuated via the memory, with synchronization performed manually or via a mechanism such as semaphores.”, 10:47-48, “In addition, it is desirable to insert code to synchronize processes in the gangs.”)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 6 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing (US 2010/0076887) in view of Kotlyar (US 9110726), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in further view of Korhammer (US 6278982).
As per claim 6, Cushing does not disclose but Korhammer discloses wherein the processing further comprises matching orders from batches accumulated at a plurality of exchanges interconnected through a network (abstract, 4:23-51, the stream of orders are collected from a plurality of exchanges, consolidated at the consolidating server and they are executed at the respective exchanges, 7:30-34, “Protocol converter 200 to 202 not only convert data for display, but upon an order being placed, convert from the system protocol to the protocol necessary to enter or execute the order on the appropriate ECN or electronic exchange.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Korhammer, a financial transaction processing analogous art, in the teaching of Cushing, in order to aggregate order book information from each participating ECN order book computer including security, order identification, and bid/ask prices information (Korhammer, abstract).
As per claim 22, Cushing does not disclose but Korhammer discloses wherein the exchanges are interconnected through a data communication network (4:22-33, “(27) The trading terminals, each participating ECN order book computer, each participating electronic exchange, and the CCS form a computer network. The ECNs' order book computers, the electronic exchanges' servers and the CCS may, in actuality, each be complex systems consisting of a number of computers and networks. The CCS aggregates order book information from each participating ECN order book computer including security, order identification, and bid/offer price information. Bid and ask prices for participating electronic exchanges may be integrated into the display.”)(please see claim 6 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing (US 2010/0076887) in view of Kotlyar (US 9110726), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in further view of Korhammer (US 6278982) and Mercer (US 20160035027).
As per claim 7, Cushing does not disclose but Korhammer discloses a synchronous batch exchange method comprising the steps:
accumulating in a first batch the orders received by a first exchange during a time period, TP; accumulating in a second batch the orders received by a second exchange during the time period, TP; transferring the first batch orders to a home matching exchange; transferring the second batch orders to the home matching exchange; consolidating orders from the first batch with the orders from the second batch; and matching consolidated orders at the home matching exchange (abstract, “A consolidating computer system supplies the market information and processes the transactions. The consolidating computer system aggregates order book information from each participating ECN order book computer including security, order identification, and bid/ask prices information. “, 4:23-36, “(27) The trading terminals, each participating ECN order book computer, each participating electronic exchange, and the CCS form a computer network. The ECNs' order book computers, the electronic exchanges' servers and the CCS may, in actuality, each be complex systems consisting of a number of computers and networks. The CCS aggregates order book information from each participating ECN order book computer including security, order identification, and bid/offer price information. Bid and ask prices for participating electronic exchanges may be integrated into the display. The combined information is displayed to customers for the selected security separately for bids and offers, and sorted by price, volume and other available attributes as desired by the customer”, 4:46-51: “(29) Once the information from a number of ECNs and electronic exchanges are combined in the CCS, either the CCS, the trading terminal, or both can be used to calculate real time metrics. The real time metrics, such as volume trends, price trends, and various on demand calculations, can aid the trader in making decisions.“, 7:23-43, “(12) Since the incoming streams of market information consisting of orders, executions and confirmations from participating ECNs and electronic exchanges are to share a common environment in the CCS 100, they must be converted to the same protocol. Accordingly, ECN150 and ECN251 have their respective protocol converters 200 and 201 which converts them to a common protocol used in the CCS 100 and terminals 17-22 ("system protocol"). Similarly, NASDAQ 52 has a protocol converter 202. Protocol converter 200 to 202 not only convert data for display, but upon an order being placed, convert from the system protocol to the protocol necessary to enter or execute the order on the appropriate ECN or electronic exchange. (13) The data from ECN150, after conversion by the protocol converter 200, is combined with the converted data from ECN251 in a data distribution server 203. The data distribution server 203 generates a consolidated order book containing all orders from all ECN members connected to the CCS. This information is organized by distribution server 203 first by security, then by price and then by information such as volume, time or other parameters as desired.)
However, Cushing in view of Korhammer does not disclose but Mercer discloses synchronizing the time of a first exchange, a second exchange and a home matching exchange (paragraph 7, 19-20, claim 3, “wherein each of the plurality of co-located servers includes its own clock, the method further comprising periodically synchronizing the clocks used by the co-located servers with GPS satellites or terrestrial sources that carry National Institute of Standards and Technology atomic clock time, wherein each of the clocks checks the accuracy of the time it is keeping and makes adjustments as necessary.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Mercer, a financial transaction processing analogous art, in the teaching of Cushing in view of Korhammer, in order to provide a current time measurable to microsecond accuracy (Mercer, paragraph 20).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing (US 2010/0076887) in view of Kotlyar (US 9110726), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, Akhter (US 20150281028).
As per claim 21, Cushing discloses transferring batch order data from one system to another (please see claim 1 rejection for details). However, Cushing does not explicitly disclose but Akhter discloses comprising the steps of timestamping a data packet
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Cushing, a financial transaction processing analogous art, in the teaching of Cushing, in order to calculate the latency in the computer networks (Akhter, paragraph 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628