DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on April 2, 2026 for 18982180.
Acknowledgements
Claims 40-42 have been added.
Claims 1-42 are pending.
Claims 1-42 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 101 rejection for claims 3, 16 and 29 has been withdrawn.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that their invention is actually directed to addressing the failure of existing network technologies to enable the provision of different market update information to different participants at substantially the same time and the claimed invention prevents market
participants from accessing market updates at the time they are received by encrypting the market updates as they are originally distributed to the participants and distributing the encrypted market updates over private multicast channels. Applicant argues that the pending claims do not recite "certain methods of organizing human activity more specifically, a "fundamental economic practice or principle and the invention does not address mitigating an economic risk but instead it addresses the technical problems resulting from implementing a trading system over the Internet. Additionally, applicant argues that the pending claims do not recite "Mathematical Calculations". Lastly Applicant argues that the pending claims do not recite a judicial exception as they recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the practical application includes a technical implementation of provisioning a plurality of private multicast channels and assigning them to data recipients, transmitting encrypted market data to the data recipients over the assigned private multicast channels, and then transmitting the encryption key to the data recipients so they
can access the encrypted data.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees as Claim 1 continues to recite the concept of distributing screened market data and encrypting data. The claim limitations (1) “transmitting encrypted first market data to the first data recipient and encrypted second market data to the second data recipient and transmitting the [additional information] simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient” fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a distribution of encoded data that is inaccessible without additional information and (2) the limitation “wherein the encrypted first and encrypted second market data has been encrypted” is grouped within the “Mathematical Concepts” specifically “mathematical calculations” because in the (1)first case, the claims involve a series of steps for distributing market data to multiple recipients and ensuring that the market data is accessible by all of the recipients or distributing data in way that is inaccessible without additional information and in the (2)second case, credit screened market data is encrypted executing a mathematical operation to manipulate data. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a computer system having one or more physical processors, a plurality of private multicast channels, a first private multicast channel, a second private multicast channel and an encryption key, as tools to perform an abstract idea. Also, the additional element recited in Claim 1 beyond the abstract idea is “a computer system having one or more physical processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed by the one or more physical processors, cause the computer system to perform the method” elements that the Examiner observes are described in the Specification as generic computer components or describing that the system is a generic computer system comprising generic components and generic computer readable media. The limitations dealing with credit screened market data is encrypted using an encryption key are also recited functionally without technical or technological details on how such as what algorithm or what basis/method the processor is caused to encrypt data. The specification only discloses an encryption key as being used to encrypt data, the “encryption key may generally refer to a piece of information (e.g., a random number, a hash, a parameter, etc.) that determines the functional output of a process used to encrypt data”. As such, these limitations comprise using mathematical operations to manipulate data, which is an abstract idea. Also, the independent claims are really broad with respect to the implementation details of the private multicast channels. The use of a computer system having one or more physical processors, a plurality of private multicast channels, a first private multicast channel, a second private multicast channel and an encryption key to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that that the Examiner has not explained how any of Rizzo, Hanna, or Maxemchuk teach or suggest provisioning "a plurality of private multicast channels" and individually assigning those channels to first and second data recipients, as required by each of the independent claims 1, 14, and 27.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as primary reference Rizzo is directed to an efficient dissemination of information to multiple recipients over one or more communication channels in a communications network such as a multicast Internetwork. Rizzo discloses in paragraph 0006 how a multicast server transmits data over one or more multicast channels which one or more client receivers join or subscribe to. Examiner interprets the limitation “provisioning, by the computer system, a plurality of private multicast channels and assigning at least a first private multicast channel of the plurality of private multicast channels to a first data recipient and at least a second private multicast channel of the plurality of private multicast channels to a second data recipient” as setting up multiple, distinct "one-to-many" communication pathways within a closed network and provisioning is considered the process of configuring routers, switches, and software to build these channels. Hence, Rizzo discloses in paragraph 0064 where a plurality of user terminals 100 are connected to the Internet multicast network 102 via Internet access servers 104 which are each connected to a multicast capable router 106, that is the servers 104 are each multicast enabled routers. Additionally, paragraph 0066 of Rizzo discloses how the “assigning…” is being conducted by each user terminal that elects or is elected to receive a transmission is linked to the appropriate IP multicast group address for that transmission and the routers associated with the elected terminals are configured to receive multicast packets addressed to that group address. Lastly, Maxemchuk discloses private multicast channels in paragraph 0075 in which each TRMP receiver re-multicasts the message that encrypted with a key that only the RBP receivers can decrypt, or are multicast in a private network that the network provider does not allow
unauthorized receivers to listen to.
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 double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,099 B2.
Claim 1 of US Pat. 12,211,099 B2 recites: A computer implemented method of distributing credit-screened market data, the method being implemented in a computer system having one or more physical processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed by the one or more physical processors, cause the computer system to perform the method, the method comprising:
provisioning a plurality of private multicast channels and assigning at least a first private multicast channel of the plurality of private multicast channels to a first data recipient and at least a second private multicast channel of the plurality of private multicast channels to a second data recipient;
generating, by the computer system, first credit-screened market data for the first data recipient based on first credit data and market data and second credit-screened market data for the second data recipient based on second credit data and the market data;
generating, by the computer system, an encryption key;
encrypting, by the computer system, at least a portion of the first and a portion of the second credit-screened market data using the encryption key;
transmitting, by the computer system, the encrypted first credit-screened market data to the first data recipient over the first private multicast channel;
transmitting, by the computer system, the encrypted second credit-screened market data to the second data recipient over the second private multicast channel;
determining, by the computer system, that the encrypted first credit-screened market data has been sent to the first data recipient and that the encrypted second credit-screened market data has been sent to the second data recipient; and
transmitting, by the computer system and in response to the determination that the encrypted first credit-screened market data has been sent to the first data recipient and that the encrypted second credit-screened market data has been sent to the second data recipient, the encryption key simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient over a multicast channel.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the Patent Document recites some of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application; however, claim 1 of the Patent Document differs since it further recites additional claim limitations including: generating, by the computer system, first credit-screened market data for the first data recipient based on first credit data and market data and second credit-screened market data for the second data recipient based on second credit data and the market data; generating, by the computer system, an encryption key; encrypting, by the computer system, at least a portion of the first and a portion of the second credit-screened market data using the encryption key and determining, by the computer system, that the encrypted first credit-screened market data has been sent to the first data recipient and that the encrypted second credit-screened market data has been sent to the second data recipient.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of the Patent Document by removing the additional limitations noted above, resulting generally in the claims of the present application, since the claims of the present application and the claim recited in the Patent Document actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karison, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 1-2, 4-15, 17-28, 30-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-2, 4-13 and 40 are directed to a method, claims 14-15, 17-26 and 41 are directed to a system and 27-28, 30-39 and 42 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage device. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite distributing screened market data and encrypting data which are abstract ideas. Specifically, the claim recites (1) “transmitting encrypted first market data to the first data recipient and encrypted second market data to the second data recipient and transmitting the [additional information] simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a distribution of encoded data that is inaccessible without additional information. (2) Also, the limitation “wherein the encrypted first and encrypted second market data has been encrypted” is grouped within the “Mathematical Concepts” specifically “mathematical calculations” (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in the (1)first case, the claims involve a series of steps for distributing market data to multiple recipients and ensuring that the market data is accessible by all of the recipients or distributing data in way that is inaccessible without additional information and in the (2)second case, credit screened market data is encrypted executing a mathematical operation to manipulate data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a computer system having one or more physical processors, a plurality of private multicast channels, a first private multicast channel, a second private multicast channel and an encryption key, as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(d)). [The use of a computer system having one or more physical processors, a plurality of private multicast channels, a first private multicast channel, a second private multicast channel and an encryption key to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the computer system having one or more physical processors, a plurality of private multicast channels, a first private multicast channel, a second private multicast channel and an encryption key perform the steps or functions of “transmitting encrypted first market data to the first data recipient and encrypted second market data to the second data recipient, wherein the encrypted first and encrypted second market data has been encrypted and transmitting the [additional information] simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient”. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of a computer system having one or more physical processors, a plurality of private multicast channels, a first private multicast channel, a second private multicast channel and an encryption key to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of distributing screened market data and encrypting data. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, computer system having one or more physical processors, a plurality of private multicast channels, a first private multicast channel, a second private multicast channel and an encryption key perform the steps/limitations of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of distributing screened market data and encrypting data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer system having one or more physical processors, a plurality of private multicast channels, a first private multicast channel, a second private multicast channel and an encryption key to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims define the detailed steps of generating and transmitting market data in response to conditions, generating the encryption key and encrypting the portions of the credit screened market data further describing the abstract idea of distributing screened market data and encrypting data. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “a random key, routing network and a second user terminal”, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzo et al. (US 2003/0147390 A1) in view of Hanna (US 8,458,462 B1) and in further view of Maxemchuk et al. (US 2002/0120837 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 14 and 27, Rizzo discloses a computer implemented method of [distributing market data], the method being implemented in a computer system having one or more physical processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed by the one or more physical processors, cause the computer system to perform the method, the method comprising (¶0001, ¶0005):
provisioning, by the computer system, a plurality of private multicast channels and assigning at least a first private multicast channel of the plurality of private multicast channels to a first data recipient and at least a second private multicast channel of the plurality of private multicast channels to a second data recipient (¶0006, ¶0064, ¶0067, ¶0078)
transmitting, by the computer system, [encrypted first market] data to the first data recipient over the first private multicast channel and encrypted second market data to the second data recipient over the second private multicast channel, [wherein the encrypted first and encrypted second market data has been encrypted using an encryption key] (¶0078, ¶0079, ¶0080)
Rizzo does not disclose: [wherein the encrypted first and encrypted second market data has been encrypted using an encryption key] and transmitting, by the computer system and after the first and second market data has been transmitted, the encryption key simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient over a multicast channel.
Hanna however discloses:
wherein the encrypted first and encrypted second market data has been encrypted using an encryption key (Col. 6 lines 26-39, Col. 7 line 66-Col. 8 line 4)
transmitting, by the computer system and after the first and second market data has been transmitted, the encryption key simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient over a multicast channel (Col. 8 line 65- Col. 9 line 8, Col. 14 lines 32-39)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [wherein the encrypted first and encrypted second market data has been encrypted using an encryption key], as disclosed in Hanna, in order to provide a secure multicast system that provides the endpoint devices with keying material needed to decrypt and analyze secure multi-casted data (see Hanna Col. 2 lines 31-33).
The combination of Rizzo and Hanna does not specifically disclose: distributing market data.
Maxemchuk however discloses: distributing market data (¶0054, ¶0057-¶0060,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [distributing market data], as disclosed in Maxemchuk, in order to provide a distributed architecture for a future global Internet stock exchange utilizing a modified timed Reliable Multicast Protocol so that multicast messages are received at the same time in a two tier distribution network (see Maxemchuk abstract).
Regarding Claims 2, 15 and 28, the combination of Rizzo, Hanna and Maxemchuk disclose the invention as above.
Hanna further discloses: determining, by the computer system, whether a triggering event has occurred, the triggering event being one of a periodic parameter, a quantum, a system performance parameter, or a manual instruction by a system administrator, wherein, the encrypted first and encrypted second market data is transmitted to the first and second data recipients in response to the determination that the triggering event has occurred (Col. 2 lines 57-Col. 3 line 3, Col. 18 lines 16-33)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [determining, by the computer system, whether a triggering event has occurred, the triggering event being one of a periodic parameter, a quantum, a system performance parameter, or a manual instruction by a system administrator, wherein, the encrypted first and encrypted second market data is transmitted to the first and second data recipients in response to the determination that the triggering event has occurred], as disclosed in Hanna, in order to provide a secure multicast system that provides the endpoint devices with keying material needed to decrypt and analyze secure multi-casted data (see Hanna Col. 2 lines 31-33).
Regarding Claims 3, 16 and 29, Rizzo discloses defining, by the computer system, the first multicast channel by associating the first data recipient with particular ports or IP addresses of a network switch of the computer system; and defining, by the computer system, the second multicast channel by associating the second data recipient with particular ports or IP addresses of the network switch (¶0006, ¶0064, ¶0067, ¶0078)
Regarding Claims 4, 17 and 30, Rizzo discloses receiving, by the computer system, a first specification from the first data recipient that the encrypted first market data be sent to the first data recipient over the first private multicast channel; and receiving, by the computer system, a second specification from the second data recipient that the encrypted second market data be sent to the second data recipient over the second private multicast channel (¶0090-¶0091).
Regarding Claims 5, 18 and 31, the combination of Rizzo, Hanna and Maxemchuk disclose the invention as above.
Maxemchuk discloses generating, by the computer system, the first market data for the first data recipient based on first credit data and market data such that the first market data is first credit-screened market data for the first data recipient; and generating, by the computer system, the second market data for the second data recipient based on second credit data and the market data such that the second market data is second credit-screened market data for the second data recipient (¶0043-¶0048, ¶0177-¶0178)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [generating, by the computer system, the first market data for the first data recipient based on first credit data and market data such that the first market data is first credit-screened market data for the first data recipient; and generating, by the computer system, the second market data for the second data recipient based on second credit data and the market data such that the second market data is second credit-screened market data for the second data recipient], as disclosed in Maxemchuk, in order to provide a distributed architecture for a future global Internet stock exchange utilizing a modified timed Reliable Multicast Protocol so that multicast messages are received at the same time in a two tier distribution network (see Maxemchuk abstract).
Regarding Claims 6, 19 and 32, the combination of Rizzo, Hanna and Maxemchuk disclose the invention as above.
Hanna further discloses:
receiving, by the computer system, an association by the first data recipient of an instrument or credit code to the first multicast channel; and (Col. 2 lines 31-38, Col. 5 lines 7-22)
receiving, by the computer system, an association by the second data recipient of an instrument or credit code to the second multicast channel; (Col. 2 lines 31-38, Col. 5 lines 7-22)
generating, by the computer system, the first market data for the first data recipient based on first credit data and market data, such that the first market data is first credit- screened market data for the first data recipient, using a first screening and distribution process based at least in part on the association by the first data recipient of the instrument or credit code to the first multicast channel; and (Col. 5 lines 62-Col. 6 line 10)
generating, by the computer system, the second market data for the second data recipient based on second credit data and the market data, such that the second market data is second credit-screened market data for the second data recipient, using a second screening and distribution process based at least in part on the association by the second data recipient of the instrument or credit code to the second multicast channel (Col. 5 lines 62-Col. 6 line 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [receiving, by the computer system, an association by the first data recipient of an instrument or credit code to the first multicast channel…], as disclosed in Hanna, in order to provide a secure multicast system that provides the endpoint devices with keying material needed to decrypt and analyze secure multi-casted data (see Hanna Col. 2 lines 31-33).
Regarding Claims 7, 20 and 33, while Rizzo discloses:
determining, by the computer system, that the encrypted first market data has been sent to the first data recipient and that the encrypted second market data has been sent to the second data recipient (¶0078, ¶0079, ¶0080)
Rizzo does not disclose: wherein, the encryption key is transmitted simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient over the multicast channel in response to the determination that the encrypted first market data has been sent to the first data recipient and that the encrypted second market data has been sent to the second data recipient.
Hanna however discloses: wherein, the encryption key is transmitted simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient over the multicast channel in response to the determination that the encrypted first market data has been sent to the first data recipient and that the encrypted second market data has been sent to the second data recipient (Col. 8 line 65- Col. 9 line 8, Col. 14 lines 32-39)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [wherein, the encryption key is transmitted simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient over the multicast channel in response to the determination that the encrypted first market data has been sent to the first data recipient and that the encrypted second market data has been sent to the second data recipient], as disclosed in Hanna, in order to provide a secure multicast system that provides the endpoint devices with keying material needed to decrypt and analyze secure multi-casted data (see Hanna Col. 2 lines 31-33).
Regarding Claims 8, 21 and 34, the combination of Rizzo, Hanna and Maxemchuk disclose the invention as above.
While Hanna further discloses:
generating, by the computer system, the first market data for the first data recipient based on first credit data and market data using a first screening and distribution process, such that the first market data is first credit-screened market data for the first data recipient; (Col. 5 lines 62-Col. 6 line 10)
generating, by the computer system, the second market data for the second data recipient based on second credit data and the market data using a second screening and distribution process, such that the second market data is second credit-screened market data for the second data recipient; (Col. 5 lines 62-Col. 6 line 10)
generating, by the computer system, the encryption key; (Col. 6 lines 26-39, Col. 7 line 66-Col. 8 line 4)
encrypting, by the computer system, the first market data by the first screening and distribution process using the encryption key; and (Col. 6 lines 26-39, Col. 7 line 66-Col. 8 line 4)
encrypting, by the computer system, the second market data by the second screening and distribution process using the encryption key (Col. 6 lines 26-39, Col. 7 line 66-Col. 8 line 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [generating, by the computer system, the first market data for the first data recipient based on first credit data and market data using a first screening and distribution process, such that the first market data is first credit-screened market data for the first data recipient…], as disclosed in Hanna, in order to provide a secure multicast system that provides the endpoint devices with keying material needed to decrypt and analyze secure multi-casted data (see Hanna Col. 2 lines 31-33).
Regarding Claims 9, 22 and 35, the combination of Rizzo, Hanna and Maxemchuk disclose the invention as above.
Hanna further discloses: determining, by the computer system, whether a triggering event has occurred, the triggering event being one of a periodic parameter, a quantum, a system performance parameter, or a manual instruction by a system administrator, wherein the encryption key is generated in response to the determination that the triggering event has occurred (Col. 2 lines 57-Col. 3 line 3, Col. 18 lines 16-33)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [determining, by the computer system, whether a triggering event has occurred, the triggering event being one of a periodic parameter, a quantum, a system performance parameter, or a manual instruction by a system administrator, wherein, the encrypted first and encrypted second market data is transmitted to the first and second data recipients in response to the determination that the triggering event has occurred], as disclosed in Hanna, in order to provide a secure multicast system that provides the endpoint devices with keying material needed to decrypt and analyze secure multi-casted data (see Hanna Col. 2 lines 31-33).
Regarding Claims 10, 23 and 36, the combination of Rizzo, Hanna and Maxemchuk disclose the invention as above.
Hanna further discloses: wherein the triggering event is a quantum, and the encryption key is generated using a random key and a nonce (Col. 11 lines 57-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [wherein the triggering event is a quantum, and the encryption key is generated using a random key and a nonce], as disclosed in Hanna, in order to provide a secure multicast system that provides the endpoint devices with keying material needed to decrypt and analyze secure multi-casted data (see Hanna Col. 2 lines 31-33).
Regarding Claims 11, 24 and 37, the combination of Rizzo, Hanna and Maxemchuk disclose the invention as above.
Hanna further discloses: wherein the triggering event is a quantum, and the encryption key is generated by sending the first screening and distribution process and the second screening and distribution process the same two independent random numbers to form the seed for custom pseudorandom number generation (Col. 11 lines 57- Col. 12 line 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [wherein the triggering event is a quantum, and the encryption key is generated by sending the first screening and distribution process and the second screening and distribution process the same two independent random numbers to form the seed for custom pseudorandom number generation], as disclosed in Hanna, in order to provide a secure multicast system that provides the endpoint devices with keying material needed to decrypt and analyze secure multi-casted data (see Hanna Col. 2 lines 31-33).
Regarding Claims 12, 25 and 38, the combination of Rizzo, Hanna and Maxemchuk disclose the invention as above.
Hanna further discloses: wherein the triggering event is a quantum and each quantum has a unique identifier computed from the timestamp at which it is sent comprising the least significant 32 bits Q of the number of milliseconds that have elapsed since a fixed previous time, the first random number is a 32 bit integer I, and the second random number is a 128 bit integer K, and the encryption key is computed using TEA to encrypt a 64 bit block obtained by concatenating Q and I with K as a key. (Col. 11 lines 57- Col. 12 line 10, Col. 16 line 65-Col. 17 line 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [wherein the triggering event is a quantum and each quantum has a unique identifier…], as disclosed in Hanna, in order to provide a secure multicast system that provides the endpoint devices with keying material needed to decrypt and analyze secure multi-casted data (see Hanna Col. 2 lines 31-33).
Regarding Claims 13, 26 and 39, while Rizzo discloses:
determining, by the computer system, that the encrypted first market data has been sent to the first data recipient by notification from the first screening and distribution process; and determining, by the computer system, that the encrypted second market data has been sent to the second data recipient by notification from the second screening and distribution process (¶0078, ¶0079, ¶0080)
Rizzo does not disclose: wherein, the encryption key is transmitted simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient over the multicast channel in response to the determination that the encrypted first market data has been sent to the first data recipient and that the encrypted second market data has been sent to the second data recipient.
Hanna however discloses: wherein, the encryption key is transmitted simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient over the multicast channel in response to the determination that the encrypted first market data has been sent to the first data recipient and that the encrypted second market data has been sent to the second data recipient (Col. 8 line 65- Col. 9 line 8, Col. 14 lines 32-39)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [wherein, the encryption key is transmitted simultaneously to the first data recipient and the second data recipient over the multicast channel in response to the determination that the encrypted first market data has been sent to the first data recipient and that the encrypted second market data has been sent to the second data recipient], as disclosed in Hanna, in order to provide a secure multicast system that provides the endpoint devices with keying material needed to decrypt and analyze secure multi-casted data (see Hanna Col. 2 lines 31-33).
Claims 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizzo in view of Hanna in view of Maxemchuk and in further view of Klein et al. (US 8,867,355 B2)
Regarding Claims 40, 41 and 42, the combination of Rizzo in view of Hanna in view of Maxemchuk does not disclose: wherein the provisioning, by the computer system, of the plurality of private multicast channels comprises, for each private multicast channel, allocating particular multicast addresses to particular egress ports of a network switch of the computer system using an access control list.
Klein however discloses: wherein the provisioning, by the computer system, of the plurality of private multicast channels comprises, for each private multicast channel, allocating particular multicast addresses to particular egress ports of a network switch of the computer system using an access control list (abstract, Col. 4 lines 16-20, Col. 5 lines 39-41, Col. 5 lines 56-65, Col. 7 lines 24-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Rizzo to include [wherein the provisioning, by the computer system, of the plurality of private multicast channels comprises, for each private multicast channel, allocating particular multicast addresses to particular egress ports of a network switch of the computer system using an access control list], as disclosed in Klein, in order to provide a system broadcasting multicast ("MC") traffic that may be transmitted from an ingress node to a plurality of egress nodes (see Klein abstract).
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 ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights