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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's approved Terminal Disclaimer overcomes the double patenting rejection, and it is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “improvement, i.e., dynamic circuit breakers, etc., is clearly claimed in the Applicant’s claims and constitutes an improvement to electronic trading system and when considered as a whole, integrates an abstract idea into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to a practical application constituting a technical improvement. The problem highlighted in the Arguments is at the abstract layer of organizing human activities, not one borne out of technology. The problems noted in Specification do not highlight any failures of modern computers. These are business implementation problems and do not set forth any deficiencies that are particular to computer capabilities or any other technology. "In sum, 'software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself." Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (emphasis added).
The improvements alleged (e.g., "automating a manual business process”) are all of an abstract commercial nature, rather than technical enhancements. The technical abilities of the underlying system (e.g., allowing the system to monitor data, enabling the system to prevent or resume processing requests) are unchanged from its generic, conventional state.
The practical application that transforms a generic computer into a special-purpose machine for solving the technical problem of inefficient processing of requests is not a technical problem, but rather a business problem.
Even assuming that performing these commercial activities is an additional element because it is done "quickly", any benefits of speed or efficiency over a manual method are merely the result of applying instructions to perform the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. "[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible." OIP, 788 F.3d at 1363 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer [does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. 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.”).
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-25, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method. Claims 13 and 25 recite a system.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of handling transactions in financial exchanges. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
monitoring, during an amount of time, transaction request messages, each including a value;
defining, upon expiration of the amount of time, a limit on a change in value based on the values included in the transaction request messages monitored during the time period;
determining that a subsequently monitored transaction request message includes a value whose difference from a prior value exceeds the limit on the change in value and, based thereon, preventing, until an occurrence of an event, processing subsequently communicated transaction request messages while storing thereof; and
resuming processing transaction request messages using a calculated transaction value, upon occurrence of the event, based on the included values of at least a subset of the stored transaction requests.
Claims 13 and 25 recite equivalent limitations.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., managing transaction requests)
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1, 13 and 25 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1 and 13 recite a processor; a hardware matching engine. Claims 1, 13 and 25 recite a processor, a hardware matching engine and a memory. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraph 0152) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 1, 13 and 25 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 13 and 25 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims are allowable over prior art. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of:
monitoring, by a processor during an amount of time, electronic data transaction request messages communicated to a hardware matching engine for processing thereby, each including a value; defining, by the processor upon expiration of the amount of time, a limit on a change in value based on the values included in the electronic data transaction request messages monitored during the time period; determining, by the processor, that a subsequently monitored electronic data transaction request message includes a value whose difference from a prior value exceeds the limit on the change in value and, based thereon, preventing, by the processor until an occurrence of an event, the hardware matching engine from processing subsequently communicated electronic data transaction request messages communicated thereto, while allowing storage thereof by the hardware matching engine in a memory coupled therewith; and enabling, by the processor upon occurrence of the event, the hardware matching engine to resume processing electronic data transaction request messages using a transaction value calculated by the processor, upon occurrence of the event, based on the included values of at least a subset of the stored electronic transaction requests.
Regarding claim 13
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims are allowable over prior art. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of:
a system comprising: a processor operative to monitor, during an amount of time, electronic data transaction request messages communicated to a hardware matching engine for processing thereby, each including a value; the processor further operative to define, upon expiration of the amount of time, a limit on a change in value based on the values included in the electronic data transaction request messages monitored during the time period; the processor further operative to determine that a subsequently monitored electronic data transaction request message includes a value whose difference from a prior value exceeds the limit on the change in value and, based thereon, prevent, until an occurrence of an event, the hardware matching engine from processing subsequently communicated electronic data transaction request messages communicated thereto, while allowing storage thereof by the hardware matching engine in a memory coupled therewith; and the processor further operative to enable, upon occurrence of the event, the hardware matching engine to resume processing electronic data transaction request messages using a transaction value calculated by the processor, upon occurrence of the event, based on the included values of at least a subset of the stored electronic transaction requests.
Regarding claim 25
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims are allowable over prior art. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of:
a system comprising: a processor and a memory coupled therewith, the processor further coupled with a hardware matching engine which processes electronic data transaction request messages received thereby so as to attempt to transact them, the memory storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: monitor, during an amount of time, electronic data transaction request messages communicated to the hardware matching engine for processing thereby, each including a value; define, upon expiration of the amount of time, a limit on a change in value based on the values included in the electronic data transaction request messages monitored during the time period; determine, that a subsequently monitored electronic data transaction request message includes a value whose difference from a prior value exceeds the limit on the change in value and, based thereon, preventing, by the processor until an occurrence of an event, the hardware matching engine from processing subsequently communicated electronic data transaction request messages communicated thereto, while allowing storage thereof by the hardware matching engine in a memory coupled therewith; and enable, upon occurrence of the event, the hardware matching engine to resume processing electronic data transaction request messages using a transaction value calculated by the processor, upon occurrence of the event, based on the included values of at least a subset of the stored electronic transaction requests.
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 MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights