DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typographical error in the last line of the limitation, “and each of the application time is described in each of the order information by the each clock module.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
***It is noted that the Specification ¶[0036], defines “application times” as time information:
“The order information 111 includes an order ID for identifying an order, a user ID for identifying a user who has made the order, an order type indicating a type of the order, an order target, a price, a quantity, and a time which is an application time (time information).”
5. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of
receive a first order information including respective first application times of one or more first orders from a first trade server of plurality of trade servers, the first trade server being installed in a first geographic region and assigning the respective first application times to the one or more first orders, in which the first trade server receives the one or more first orders on respective first application times from clients located in a first geographic region and generate the first order information including respective first application times;
receive an nth order information including respective nth application times of one or more nth orders from an nth trade server of the plurality of trade servers, the nth trade server being installed in an nth geographic region that is geographically distant from the first geographic region and assigning the respective nth application times to the one or more nth orders, in which the nth trade server receives the one or more nth orders on the respective nth application times from clients located in an nth geographic region and generate the nth order information including the respective nth application times; and determine the first to the nth order information for each predetermined period in an order based on the respective application times, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention allows for a trade management that handles trade orders having a communication gap which is a fundamental economic practice. The mere nominal recitation of non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions for implementing functions of managing trade, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a computer, cause the computer to perform claimed functions and a plurality of trade servers, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions for implementing functions of managing trade, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a computer, cause the computer to perform claimed operations and trade server(s). The one or more processors of a computer and trade server(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of receiving a first order information…, generate first order information, receive an nth order information…; and determine the first to the nth order information for each predetermined period in an order based on the respective application times) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 8 and 9 and hence claims 8 and 9 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 8 recites a trade aggregation server and claim 9 recites a trade management system that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements 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 elements of using a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions executable by one or more processors of a computer and a trade server, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7, 10-19 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-19 is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
***It is noted that the Specification ¶[0036], defines “application times” as time information:
“The order information 111 includes an order ID for identifying an order, a user ID for identifying a user who has made the order, an order type indicating a type of the order, an order target, a price, a quantity, and a time which is an application time (time information).”
7. Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bonig et al (US 2020/0342536).
Re-claim 1: Bonig disclose:
receive a first order information including respective first application times of one or more first orders from a first trade server of plurality of trade servers (Systems with an exchange may require the current time as an input to process an order [0005]; plurality of market participants sending orders [0026]; [0028]; trading network [0143]; each of the plurality of financial transactions associated with time signal data [0156]-[0160]), the first trade server being installed in a first geographic region and assigning the respective first applications times to the one or more first orders (“As described above, the edge or demarcation point 142 may be geographically located anywhere, e.g. it may be geographically proximate to or remote from the other components of the electronic trading system 100.”- [0141], see also [0139], “The logical boundaries of the electronic trading system 100, which may also be referred to as the demarcation point or edge 142.” -[0140] and Fig. 1; clients and servers are generally remote from one another- [0335], each of the plurality of financial transactions associated with time signal data -[0156]-[0160]), in which the first trade server receives the one or more first orders on respective first application times from clients located in a first geographic region and generate the first order information including the respective first application times ( [0205]-“FIG. 3 depicts a flow chart 300 showing operation of the system 200 of FIG. 2. In particular FIG. 3 shows a computer and/or FPGA implemented method for processing a plurality, e.g. a series or sequence, of financial transactions, such as orders to trade a financial product, received via a network, such as the network 126 of FIG. 1, from a plurality of market participants 204, the processing of each transaction operative to cause a change in a current state of an electronic marketplace for one or more financial products. In one embodiment, each transaction may comprise a request to transact, e.g. an order to buy or sell, one or more financial products…;” [0206]- “The operation of the system 200 includes receiving, by a transaction receiver 210 from the network 126, such as via the interconnection infrastructure 202, each of the plurality of financial transactions (Block 302). The operation of the system 200 further includes augmenting, by the transaction receiver 210, the received financial transaction with time signal data, such as a timestamp based on a system clock of the transaction receiver 210 (Block 304). In one embodiment, the transaction receiver 210 may augment the received financial transaction with time signal data immediately or in real time, e.g., upon receipt of the financial transaction.”-see Figs. 2 & 3);
receive an nth order information including respective nth application times of one or more nth orders from an nth trade server of the plurality of trade servers, (plurality of servers sending trade data-[0149]), the nth trade server being installed in an nth geographic region that is geographically distant from the first geographic region and assigning the respective nth application times to the one or more nth orders (“As described above, the edge or demarcation point 142 may be geographically located anywhere, e.g. it may be geographically proximate to or remote from the other components of the electronic trading system 100.”- [0141], see also [0139], “The logical boundaries of the electronic trading system 100, which may also be referred to as the demarcation point or edge 142.” -[0140] and Fig. 1; clients and servers are generally remote from one another- [0335], each of the plurality of financial transactions associated with time signal data -[0156]-[0160]);
in which the nth trade server receives the one or more nth orders on the respective nth application times from clients located in an nth geographic region and generate the nth order information including the respective nth application times (time stamped orders received from multiple trader servers stored in order book [0061]-[0062], [0126]; market participants in disparate geographic locations submitting orders (i.e., nth orders)-[0139]-[0141]; each of the plurality of financial transactions associated with time signal data [0156]-[0160];
and determine the first to the nth order information for each predetermined period in an order is based on the respective application times (processing time stamp order in sequence [0124-0126]; each of the plurality of financial transactions associated with time signal data [0156]-[0160]).
Re-claim 2. Bonig disclose wherein each of the plurality of trade servers includes a clock module, each clock module is calibrated to provide a same time information among the plurality of trade servers, and each of the application time is described in each of the order information by the each clock module. (time stamping –[0157]-[0162]).
Re-claim 3. Bonig disclose wherein each clock module has a secret key, creates a token from the secret key, and links the token with the each of the order information together with the each of the application time. (market data feeds into a single feed using participant-unique tokens or identifiers to signal when a particular feed message is also an acknowledgment to a particular trader, or encrypting the acknowledgement feed messages such that they can only be decrypted by a key-[0110]).
Re-claim 4. Bonig disclose further implementing a function of verifying the each of the order information using the token (market data feeds into a single feed using participant-unique tokens or identifiers to signal when a particular feed message is also an acknowledgment to a particular trader, or encrypting the acknowledgement feed messages such that they can only be decrypted by a key-[0110]).
Re-claim 5. Bonig disclose wherein a determination result obtained from the determination step is output as trade result information (displaying determined information [0320]).
Claims 8 and 9 have similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claims 10-12 have similar limitations found in claim 5 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Re-claim 17: Bonig disclose wherein the first to the nth order information for each predetermined period is determined by the respective first to nth application times. (processing time stamp order in sequence [0124-0126] time stamping –[0157]-[0162]).
Claims 18-19 have similar limitations found in claim 17 above, and therefore are rejected by the same art and rationale.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue that while the claimed embodiment relates to trade management, the claims are not directed to organizing human activity itself, but rather to a specific technical improvement in how order information is received, aggregated, and analyzed across different geographical regions and time periods by a trade aggregation system. Applicants argue that the claimed embodiment addresses a technical challenge that arises uniquely in distributed electronic trading environments, namely, the fact that orders originating from clients in geographically distant regions reach centralized systems at slightly different times on the order of microseconds, due to physical distance and consequent communication delays. Applicants allege that the claimed invention resolves a distributed-systems problem, in that the amended claims require that each geographically installed trade server assign an application time to each order at the moment the order is received within that particular region and therefore, this represents a specific and technologically grounded solution to a computer-based problem.
The argument is not convincing because the claimed invention uses generic computer components to implement the claimed invention resulting in an improvement in a business process and not an improvement in a technological process.
Applicants argue that the claimed invention addresses communication delays and latency by requiring that each geographically installed trade server assigns an application time to each order the moment that the order is received within the particular region and therefore represents a specific an technologically grounded solution to a computer-based problem. This argument is not persuasive because the argued increase in speed and capability comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer that includes a processor, rather than the claimed method itself. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”).
Furthermore, placing servers in different geographic locations is a common strategy used by companies to provide faster transfer rates, avoid downtime, and increase performance in financial transactions whether associated with placing an order in an ecommerce environment or to exchange trade messages in financial trading. See prior art references in the Conclusion section below.
Applicants argue that the claimed invention recites significantly more than the abstract idea. The argument is not persuasive. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102, Applicants argue that Bonig fails to disclose “the first trade server being installed in a first geographic region and assigning the respective first application times to the one or more first orders.”
The applicant’s attention is directed to Bonig, ¶[0141] which recites, “As described above, the edge or demarcation point 142 may be geographically located anywhere, e.g. it may be geographically proximate to or remote from the other components of the electronic trading system 100.”-, see also Figure 2 item 142 and ¶[0139] which recites, “The logical boundaries of the electronic trading system 100, which may also be referred to as the demarcation point or edge 142.” Bonig discloses that clients and servers are generally remote from one another in ¶ [0335], and that each of the plurality of financial transactions associated with time signal data -see ¶¶[0156]-[0160].
Applicant suggests that Bonig describes an “Orderer” and not a regional server that augments ordering transactions with timestamps. The argument is not convincing. Fig. 2 shows the “Orderer,” item 210 is a component of the system that sequences transactions for subsequent processing -see [0090]. The Orderer, e.g., transaction receiver 210, may receive messages intended for the match engines, e.g., transaction processors 208, including instructions and transactions from multiple sources. For example, the transaction receiver 210 receives financial transactions from market participants which are sent to the transaction processors 208, and also receives administrative instructions from administrative systems 216 which are also sent to the transaction processors 208.-¶ [0082]. Incoming transactions, e.g. orders to trade, are processed by an Orderer component, i.e., a transaction receiver, of the architecture which may augment each transaction with time signal data, or data indicative of a time of receipt or time or sequence indicative of a temporal or sequential relationship between a received transaction and other received transactions. The time signal data may be based on, for example, a system clock or the Orderer.[0061]. Embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server -¶[0334]. Furthermore, Bonig teaches that ¶[0139] which recites, “The logical boundaries of the electronic trading system 100, which may also be referred to as the demarcation point or edge 142,” see also Figure 2 item 142 and “As described above, the edge or demarcation point 142 may be geographically located anywhere, e.g. it may be geographically proximate to or remote from the other components of the electronic trading system 100.”-see ¶[0141].(emphasis added).
Applicants contend that Bonig does not disclose "nth trade server being installed in an nth geographic region that is geographically distant from the first geographic region and assigning the respective nth application times to the one or more nth orders." The examiner respectfully disagrees. Bonig discloses, “As described above, the edge or demarcation point 142 may be geographically located anywhere, e.g. it may be geographically proximate to or remote from the other components of the electronic trading system 100.”-¶ [0141], see also ¶[0139], “The logical boundaries of the electronic trading system 100, which may also be referred to as the demarcation point or edge 142.” -[0140] and Fig. 1; clients and servers are generally remote from one another- ¶[0335], each of the plurality of financial transactions associated with time signal data -¶¶[0156]-[0160].
Applicants argue that Bonig does not disclose determining order information for each predetermined period based on regionally assigned application times. The argument is not persuasive. Bonig discloses processing time stamp order in sequence [0124-0126]; each of the plurality of financial transactions associated with time signal data [0156]-[0160].
Applicants contend that Bonig fails to disclose aggregating order information originating from geographically distant regional servers, nor determining order information using timestamps before orders reach the centralized system.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., aggregating order information and determining order information using timestamps before orders reach the centralized system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Bonig discloses receiving a plurality of financial transactions from a plurality of market participants-Fig 3 item 302. The clients and servers are generally remote from one another- ¶[0335], augmenting each received financial transactions with time signal data item Fig 3 item 304 and receiving by the matching engines 208, the augmented financial transactions by the matching engine items Fig 3 item 306 and ¶[0209], also Fig. 2 items 204, 210, 208.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Do You Have Servers In Different Geographic Locations?” Compevo Communications. July 30, 2021. -cited for its reference to increasing trend that many companies are using is to place servers in different geographic locations to avoid downtime and increase system performance.
US 2017/0293980 (Phillips et al.)-cited for its reference to a system and method for receiving real-time data stream including real-time financial market data and trade updates and locating real-time financial data servers and users in separate geographic locations from each other.
US 2011/0276515 (Crosthwaite et al.)-cited for system and method for providing an intermediary for a trade orders transactions including that one or more servers may be separate from or integral with trading engine. In addition, in some embodiments, one or more servers may be physically distributed such that each server, or multiple instances of each server, may be located in a different physical location geographically remote from each other and/or from trading engine.
US 2004/0260640 (Crosthwaite et al.)-cited for system and method for managing trading order requests including one or more servers may be physically distributed such that each server, or multiple instances of each server, may be located in a different physical location geographically remote from each other and/or from trading engine.
US 6829590 (Greener et al.)-cited for its reference to a transaction facilitator system that may include multiple processing and database subsystems, such as cooperative or redundant processing and/or database servers which can be geographically dispersed throughout the network.
WO 01/59661 A2 cited for apparatus, method and program for a fixed income trading system including a trading system, wherein each of two server computers is located in a geographically separate location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694