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 .
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Application No. 18/931,221 filed on October 30, 2024, title: “System and Method for Optimizing Execution of Trading Orders”.
Status of the Claims
Claim 1 is pending in this application and has been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 10/30/2024 and is a CON of US Patent Application No. 18/384,438 filed on 10/27/2023 (abandoned) which is a CON of US Patent Application No. 17/322,218 filed on 09/17/2018 (Patented No. 11,842,394) which is a CON of US Patent Application No. 16/133,099 filed on 09/17/2018 (Patented No. 11,010,834) which is a CON of US Patent Application No. 13/180,010 filed 07/11/2011 (abandoned) which is a CON of US Patent Application No. 11/398,241 filed 04/04/2006 (Patented No. 7,979,339).
For the purpose of examination, the date 04/04/2006 is considered to be the effective filing date.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,842,394, claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,010,834, and claim 1 of US Patent No. 7,979,339. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claim is broader than the reference claims in the patents and anticipated by the reference claims. The examined claim recites substantially the same limitations as the reference claims in the patents with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art. Also, both the Application and the Patents are directed to the same invention of optimizing execution of trading orders and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
Application No. 18/931,221
Patent No. 11,842,394
Claim 1, A method for processing trading orders, comprising:
Claim 1, A method comprising:
controlling, by at least one processor:
receiving a first trading order;
receiving a second trading order;
receiving market data associated with at least one market center; and
receiving a first trading order, a second trading order after the first trading order, and market data associated with at least one market center;
determining whether to transmit the second trading order to the at least one market center prior to transmitting the first trading order to the at least one market center, the determination based at least in part on the market data.
determining whether to transmit the second trading order to the at least one market center prior to transmitting the first trading order to the at least one market center, based at least in part on the market data and platform data representing at least one of computing capacity or storage capacity associated with a computer trading system;
analyzing likelihood of timely execution of trading orders received from traders based on current market data and platform data that includes available processing and storage capacity of the computer trading system;
assigning, by the at least one processor, priority to trading orders that are most likely to result in quickly executed transactions; and
filtering out trading orders that are unlikely to result in timely executed transactions, thereby reducing processing time for realistic trading orders and increasing liquidity in a marketplace.
Application No. 18/931,221
Patent No. 11,010,834
Claim 1, A method for processing trading orders, comprising:
Claim 1, A method for processing trading orders, comprising:
receiving a first trading order;
receiving a second trading order;
receiving market data associated with at least one market center; and
receiving, by at least one processor, a first trading order;
receiving, by the at least one processor, a second trading order;
receiving, by the at least one processor, market data associated with at least one market center; and
determining whether to transmit the second trading order to the at least one market center prior to transmitting the first trading order to the at least one market center, the determination based at least in part on the market data.
determining, by the at least one processor, whether to transmit the second trading order to the at least one market center prior to transmitting the first trading order to the at least one market center, the determination based at least in part on the market data;
analyzing, by the at least one processor, quality of trading orders received from traders based on current market data;
analyzing, by the at least one processor, the quality of trading orders based on platform data that includes available processing and storage capacity of a trading system;
assigning, by the at least one processor, priority to trading orders that are most likely to result in quickly executed transactions; and
filtering out, by the at least one processor, trading orders that are unlikely to result in timely executed transactions, thereby reducing processing time for realistic trading orders and increasing liquidity in a market place.
Application No. 18/931,221
Patent No. 7,979,339
Claim 1, A method for processing trading orders, comprising:
Claim 1, A method for processing trading orders, comprising:
receiving a first trading order;
receiving a second trading order;
receiving market data associated with at least one market center; and
receiving by at least one processor a first trading order from a trading participant, the first trading order comprising one of a bid to purchase a volume of financial instruments and an offer to sell a volume of financial instruments;
after receiving the first trading order, receiving by the at least one processor a second trading order from a trading participant;
receiving by the at least one processor market data associated with at least one market center, the market data comprising at least one of (1) one or more trading volumes, (2) one or more best bid or offer prices, (3) one or more trends in prices, (3) one or more trends in trading volumes, (4) one or more times of entry of one or more trading orders, (5) a number of outstanding trading orders, and (5) a number of active traders;
determining whether to transmit the second trading order to the at least one market center prior to transmitting the first trading order to the at least one market center, the determination based at least in part on the market data.
determining by the at least one processor whether to transmit the second trading order to the at least one market center prior to transmitting the first trading order to the at least one market center, the determination based at least in part on the market data, in which the act of determining comprises determining to transmit the second trading order to the at least one market center prior to transmitting the first trading order to the at least one market center;
based at least in part on the act of determining whether to transmit the second order to the at least one market center prior to transmitting the first trading order to the at least one market center, transmitting the second order to the at least one market center before any transmitting of the first trading order to any market center.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claim 1 recites a method for processing trading orders as recited in the preamble of the claim. Thus, the claim recites a process and falls within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claim is statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1, A method for processing trading orders, comprising:
receiving a first trading order;
receiving a second trading order;
receiving market data associated with at least one market center; and
determining whether to transmit the second trading order to the at least one market center prior to transmitting the first trading order to the at least one market center, the determination based at least in part on the market data.
The above limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., computer, processors, database). More specifically, the claim recites fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions including a method to optimize execution of trade orders in a trading environment. The claim as a whole recites a method for determining whether to transmit the second trading order prior to transmitting the first trading order to the market center and the determination is based in part on the market data (optimizing execution of trade orders in a trading environment) See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
The recited process, such as receiving data, receiving more data, and determining whether to transmit the second trading order to the market center prior to transmitting the first trading order by a determination based on the market data, narrow the abstract idea to a particular type of relationships, but they do not change the analysis because it is merely a process (a series of steps) to govern how the process is performed. The claim describes the concept that is directed to a fundamental economic practice (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) which is a Method of Organizing Human Activity.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, none of the method steps in the claim are clearly recited as being performed by a computer or device and per the claim scope can be performed by a person with paper and pencil. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim also recites a Mental Process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
If a claim covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not include any additional element(s), such as computers or processors, that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claim is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
The claim does not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered 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 claim does not include an additional computer element to perform the receiving, receiving, and determining functions. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The focus of the claim is on determining whether to transmit the second trading order prior to transmitting the first trading order to the market center in order to optimize the execution of trading orders in an electronic trading environment. The claim is not directed to a new processor, network, system memory, or user interface, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claim is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. The claim does not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claim do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claim does not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claim is not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Also, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s claimed invention is “a business solution” to “a business problem” and this is supported in paragraphs 3-4 of the Specification (see Publication No. 20250054061):
[0003] In recent years, electronic trading systems have gained widespread acceptance for the trading of a variety of items, such as goods, services, financial instruments, and commodities. Electronic trading systems generally receive and process trading orders from traders. Occasionally, traders submit low quality or unrealistic trading orders. Such trading orders specify criteria that vary widely from prevailing market conditions. For example, if the prevailing market price for a particular trading product is $25.00 per unit, a trading order to buy the particular trading product for $8.00 per unit may be considered an unrealistic trading order. Unrealistic trading orders do not typically result in quickly executed transactions. Instead, unrealistic trading orders usually remain unfilled for long periods of time. As a result, unrealistic trading orders do not increase liquidity in the market place.
[0004] Electronic trading systems typically process trading orders received from traders according to “first-in, first-out” (FIFO) principles. Based on FIFO principles, electronic trading systems process trading orders in the order in which they are received from traders. As a result, if a realistic trading order (i.e., a trading order that is likely to result in a quickly executed transaction) is received shortly after an unrealistic trading order (i.e., a trading order that is unlikely to be filled quickly), the realistic trading order must wait while the electronic trading system first processes the unrealistic trading order. This delay in processing the realistic trading order may decrease liquidity in the market place.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myr (US Publication No. 2005/0015323) (hereinafter “Myr”).
As per Claim 1, Myr teaches a method for processing trading orders (see Myr, at least Abstract “… automated transmission of Buy/Sell orders generated according to self-optimized trading parameters … The system receives real-time market quotes information from a data provider remote server and uses it as an input for the defined trading strategies. These trading strategies generate Buy/Sell signals for a plurality of chosen market securities. The trading could be performed with previously optimized parameters or, alternatively, the optimization could be performed in real-time with trading strategy and its parameters being perpetually and automatically updated, and consequently the trading being performed with self-optimized parameters. ”), comprising:
receiving a first trading order (see Myr, at least paras. 45-48, 46 “… both receiving data feed from data provider and sends Buy/Sell orders to computerized exchanges”, 64 “… a Buy/Sell signal is generated by the trading software (401));
receiving a second trading order (see Myr, at least paras. 45-48, 46 “… both receiving data feed from data provider and sends Buy/Sell orders to computerized exchanges”, 64 “… a Buy/Sell signal is generated by the trading software (401));
receiving market data associated with at least one market center (see Myr, at least paras. 40, 43 “… the trader simply clicks on the buy or sell button to send the order directly to the markets.”, 44-48); and
determining whether to transmit the second trading order to the at least one market center prior to transmitting the first trading order to the at least one market center (see Myr, at least paras. 34, 37-38, 64 “After a Buy/Sell signal is generated by the trading software (401), it goes through the connected API (402) to our automatic execution platform (403), which enables, upon user's request, to transfer orders automatically and completely without human intervention to computerized exchanges”, 92; and Figures 2, 4), the determination based at least in part on the market data (see Myr, at least paras. 34, 37-38, 40, 43-48, 92 “the system will update market data, portfolio holdings, including cash, and recalculate purchase and sale orders for all relevant securities”).
Conclusion
Claim 1 is rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights