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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 20th of December 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 12/20/2024 has been considered. Initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“…receiving…, a first message from a first market participant, the first message including an encoded indication of message type and an encoded indication of a first cancel delay value specifying a first amount of time selected by the first market participant that must pass after the receipt of the first message by the computer system before an order specified in the first message can be cancelled by the first market participant; adding… a first timestamp to the first message indicating the time it was received by the ETV; determining….that the first message comprises a first maker order by analyzing the encoded indication of message type of the first message; determining…that the first maker order specifies a first instrument and first price level; adding…the first maker order to a maker order queue including additional maker orders; receiving…a second message from a second market participant, the second message including an encoded indication of message type and an encoded indication of a second cancel delay value specifying a second amount of time selected by the second market participant that must pass after the receipt of the second message by the computer system before an order specified in the second message can be cancelled by the second market participant; adding…a second timestamp to the second message indicating the time it was received by the ETV, the second timestamp being after the first timestamp; determining…that the second message comprises a second maker order by analyzing the encoded indication of message type of the second message; determining…that the second maker order specifies the first instrument and the first price level; adding…the second maker order to a maker order queue; obtaining…from a taker order queue, a taker order for the first instrument at the first price level; processing…based on the occurrence of a first trigger, the maker order queue by iterating through each maker order in the maker order queue and prioritizing them for matching based first on whether each maker order includes an encoded indication of a cancel delay value and second, if so, the size of the cancel delay value, such that the first and second maker orders are prioritized ahead of other maker orders without cancel delay values, and such that the second maker order is prioritized ahead of the first maker order based on the second cancel delay value being greater than the first cancel delay value; selecting…in response to the prioritizing of the second maker order ahead of the first maker order, the second maker order to be matched with the taker order for execution.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites a commercial or legal interactions, namely processing maker orders. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., computer system, Electronic Trading Venue (ETV)). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g., computer system, Electronic Trading Venue (ETV)) to receive/transmit/obtain data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g., computer system, Electronic Trading Venue (ETV)) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements - (e.g., computer system, Electronic Trading Venue (ETV)) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving/obtaining of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claim 11.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2 and 12, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…predefining…a set of permissible cancel delay values that may be selected for the first cancel delay value and second cancel delay value.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 3 and 13, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…wherein the first and second maker orders comprise Financial Information eXchange (FIX) formatted messages.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4 and 14, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…wherein the first cancel delay value is encoded in the first message as a key-value pair.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 5 and 15, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…predefining…a range of possible cancel delay values; determining, by the computer system, that the first cancel delay value is within the range of possible cancel delay values; and determining, by the computer system, that the second cancel delay value is within the range of possible cancel delay values.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 6 and 16, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…receiving…a third message including an encoded indication of a third cancel delay value that exceeds the predefined maximum cancel delay value; and rejecting…the third message based on the third cancel delay value not being below the predefined maximum cancel delay value.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 7 and 17, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…wherein the first and second maker orders comprise algorithmic orders, the method further comprising: receiving, by the computer system, a fourth message manually input by a fourth market participant that is a non-algorithmic order and does not specify a cancel delay value; determining, by the computer system, that the fourth message comprises a fourth maker order that is non-algorithmic; assigning, by the computer system, a fourth cancel delay value to the fourth maker order based on the determination that the fourth message is a fourth maker order that is non- algorithmic order.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 8 and 18, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…wherein processing the maker order queue comprises implementing a polling thread to iterate through each maker order.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 9 and 19, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…wherein the first trigger results from a first amount of time having passed since a previous trigger.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 10 and 20, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…wherein the first trigger results from the receipt of a triggering message by the computer system.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
05/29/2026
Prosecution Insights