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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024 and 12/02/2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner notes that the various “means” recited in claim 21 are clearly linked to sufficient structure in the Specification as follows:
“means for receiving, from a first participant, a current data message at a dedicated processing instance” – “the data processing instance 301 may receive a data message from a first participant at the exchange interface 310” (Specification, ¶[00143], emphasis added)
“means for accessing in a data structure at the dedicated processing instance, a participant-specific exchange mapping relationship” – “The filter engine 314 may access the exchange relationship mapping 332” (Specification, ¶[00134], emphasis added)
“means for determining, based on the participant-specific exchange relationship mapping…” – “the data processing instance 301 may implement the filter engine 314 to access the exchange relationship mapping 332 within the data structure 330 to determine classify other participants as relationship participants or blocked participants” (Specification, ¶[00144], emphasis added)
“means for determining a preliminary match…” – “The match engine 312 may attempt to match received data messages from the participant with data messages of other participants” (Specification, ¶[00129], emphasis added)
“means for forwarding…to a global processing instance” – “the exchange interface 310 may distribute (e.g., globally distribute through broadcast messaging)” (Specification, ¶[00150], emphasis added)
“means for receiving, from the global processing instance, and indication” – “The exchange interface 310 may further receive market data messages…[including] indications” (Specification, ¶[00113])
“means for cancelling” – “The message handler 316 then provides the converted market data message to the exchange interface 310 for distribution…When conditions are not met for conversion to market data, the remaining portion of the data message is cancelled” (Specification, ¶[00138], emphasis added).
Each of the disclosed “filter engine”, “match engine”, “exchange interface”, and “message handler” are defined as program code stored in memory, which is sufficient structure (The exchange interface 310, match engine 312, filter engine 314, the message handler 316, and/or the chase logic 318 may be computer executable program code stored in the memory 304”, Specification, ¶[00141]).
Claim Objections
Claim 13, which recites “Non-transitory computer-readable media configured to store instructions thereon” (emphasis added), is objected to as it does not positively recite that instructions are stored on the non-transitory computer-readable media (the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is merely a non-transitory computer-readable media capable of storing instructions, but not actually storing such instructions). Examiner suggests amending the claim to positively recite storage of the instructions on the non-transitory computer-readable media.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,200,048 in view of Wallener et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2014/0249979), hereinafter Wallender. For example, compare instant claim 1 with patented claim 1:
U.S. Pat. 12,200,048
App. No. 18/936,260
1. A computer-implemented method of data message matching in a peer-to-peer system, the method including:
1. A computer-implemented method of data message matching in a peer-to-peer system, the method including:
receiving, by a processor and from a first participant, a current data message at a dedicated processing instance for the first participant, the dedicated processing instance for the first participant including dedicated compute resources for match operations specific to the first participant;
receiving, by a processor and from a first participant, a current data message at a dedicated processing instance for the first participant, the dedicated processing instance for the first participant including dedicated compute resources for match operations specific to the first participant;
accessing, in a data structure at the dedicated processing instance, a participant-specific exchange relationship mapping;
accessing, in a data structure at the dedicated processing instance, a participant-specific exchange relationship mapping;
determining, by the processor and based on the participant-specific exchange relationship mapping, that the first participant has an exchange relationship with one or more relationship participants;
determining, by the processor and based on the participant-specific exchange relationship mapping, that the first participant has an exchange relationship with one or more relationship participants;
determining, by the processor and based on the participant-specific exchange relationship mapping, that the first participant lacks an exchange relationship with one or more blocked participants;
determining, by the processor and based on the participant-specific exchange relationship mapping, that the first participant lacks an exchange relationship with one or more blocked participants;
attempting to match, using a mirrored market datastore of the data structure at the dedicated processing instance and without attempting to match to data messages associated with the one or more blocked participants, the current data message to one or more provider data messages from a first provider and/or one or more previous participant data messages associated with corresponding ones of the one or more relationship participants having an exchange relationship with the first participant, the one or more previous participant data messages converted to market data based on match-failure market data conversion preferences by the corresponding ones of the one or more relationship participants, the mirrored market datastore including global market data mirrored across the peer-to-peer system;
determining a preliminary match, using a compartmentalized market datastore of the data structure at the dedicated processing instance and without attempting to match to data messages associated with the one or more blocked participants, for the current data message to one or more provider data messages from a first provider and/or one or more previous participant data messages associated with corresponding ones of the one or more relationship participants having an exchange relationship with the first participant, the one or more previous participant data messages converted to market data based on match-failure market data conversion preferences by the corresponding ones of the one or more relationship participants, the compartmentalized market datastore including compartmentalized data that excludes market data invisible to the first participant;
determining, by the processor at the dedicated processing instance, whether the first participant has a match-failure market data conversion preference for the current data message;
at a time the attempt to match fails at least in part and the first participant has a match-failure market data conversion preference for the current data message:
converting, by the processor, the current data message to updated market data; and
globally broadcasting the updated market data from the dedicated processing instance to other dedicated processing instances for other participants in the peer-to-peer system, the other participants in the peer-to-peer system including both the relationship participants and the one or more blocked participants; and
forwarding, by the processor and from the dedicated processing instance, the preliminary match to a global processing instance to attempt to achieve a confirmation match based at least on the market data invisible to the first participant;
receiving, by the processor and from the global processing instance, an indication of whether the attempt to achieve a confirmation match was successful; and
cancelling, at a time the attempt to match fails and the first participant lacks a match-failure market data conversion preference for the current data message, the current data message without distribution to the other dedicated processing instances.
cancelling, at least one time that the attempt to achieve a confirmation match fails, the current data message without distribution to the other dedicated processing instances.
While the patented claims disclose matching data messages of blocked participants using a mirrored market datastore, the patented claims do not disclose doing so using a compartmentalized market datastore as in the instant claims.
Wallener disclosed a financial exchange system using compartmentalized data storage (¶[0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the instant claims to use a compartmentalized market data store as claimed, because doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element (i.e., mirrored market datastore) for another (i.e., compartmentalized market datastore) to obtain predictable results.
Instant claims 13 and 20 are parallel in scope to instant claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale. Instant claims 2-12 and 14-19 are similarly unpatentable over the patented claims in view of Wallener.
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 1-20 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 1 recites “the compartmentalized market datastore including compartmentalized data that excludes market data invisible to the first participant” in line 24. The claim is unclear, as it does not define the terms “compartmentalized” or “invisible”, such that the scope of the claim can be ascertained as to what compartmentalized or invisible data is or includes. Claims 13 and 20 recite a similar limitation and are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 2-12 and 14-19 are rejected as depending from claims 1 and 13, respectively, and under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other dedicated processing instances" in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “other dedicated processing instances”. Claims 2-12 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and under the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the other dedicated processing instances" in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “other dedicated processing instances”. Claims 14-19 are rejected as depending from claim 13 and under the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the other dedicated processing instances" in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “other dedicated processing instances”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Repaka et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2017/0004575) disclosed disseminating order status information to market participants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441