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 .
1. Claims 1-20 filed 01/06/2025 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-8 to a system/apparatus, claims 9-16 are to a process comprising a series of steps, and clams 17-20 to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer system comprising: a routing system configured to receive at least one message from a computer network coupled to at least one computer device; and at least one processor electronically connected to the routing system and configured to
(i) receive the at least one message from the routing system and to execute a blind auction during a first session, wherein, to execute the blind auction, the at least one processor is configured to:
(ii) identify an order type in each order requested through the at least one message by:
extrapolating one or more bits from each of the at least one message corresponding to an order type field in each of the at least one message;
comparing the one or more bits to data in a look-up table stored in one or more databases; and
identifying an order type for each requested order through the at least one message based on the comparing of the one or more bits to the data in the look-up table;
(iii) determine that one or more of the identified order types satisfies a determined order type
criterion;
(iv) apply a filter to permit one or more orders that have the one or more of the identified
order types satisfying the determined order type criterion to be processed during a closing period;
(v) generate one or more imbalance messages using a reference model, the one or more imbalance messages comprising imbalance information associated with the blind auction;
(vi) close, during the closing period, the blind auction based on the permitted one or more orders and using a matching criterion; and
(vii) transmit a notification message through the routing system to the computer network indicating an outcome of the blind auction.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations in claim 1, as recited, comprising “ receive the at least one message and execute a blind auction during a first session, wherein, to execute the blind auction, the at least one processor is configured to: identify an order type in each order requested through the at least one message by: extrapolating one or more bits from each of the at least one message corresponding to an order type field in each of the at least one message; comparing the one or more bits to data in a look-up table stored in one or more databases; and identifying an order type for each requested order through the at least one message based on the comparing of the one or more bits to the data in the look-up table; determine that one or more of the identified order types satisfies a determined order type criterion; apply a filter to permit one or more orders that have the one or more of the identified order types satisfying the determined order type criterion to be processed during a closing period; generate one or more imbalance messages using a reference model, the one or more imbalance messages comprising imbalance information associated with the blind auction; close, during the closing period, the blind auction based on the permitted one or more orders and using a matching criterion; and transmit a notification message through the routing system to the computer network indicating an outcome of the blind auction.”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite abstract ideas comprising certain methods of organizing human activity, such as a blind auction, and while doing so using “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical concepts”.
The limitations comprising, “ r(i) receive the at least one message and execute a blind auction during a first session, wherein, to execute the blind auction, the at least one processor is configured to (ii) identify an order type in each order requested through the at least one message , (iii) determine that one or more of the identified order types satisfies a determined order type criterion; (iv) apply a filter to permit one or more orders that have the one or more of the identified order types satisfying the determined order type criterion to be processed during a closing period; (v) generate one or more imbalance messages using a reference model, the one or more imbalance messages comprising imbalance information associated with the blind auction; (vi) close, during the closing period, the blind auction based on the permitted one or more orders and using a matching criterion; and (vii) transmit a notification message through the routing system to the computer network indicating an outcome of the blind auction”, recite a commercial activity of conducting a blind auction falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts of sales and purchase activities. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8 recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity [blind auction]”.
The limitations comprising , “ (ii) identify an order type in each order requested through the at least one message by: extrapolating one or more bits from each of the at least one message corresponding to an order type field in each of the at least one message; comparing the one or more bits to data in a look-up table stored in one or more databases; and identifying an order type for each requested order through the at least one message based on the comparing of the one or more bits to the data in the look-up table; (iii) determine that one or more of the identified order types satisfies a determined order type criterion; (iv) apply a filter to permit one or more orders that have the one or more of the identified order types satisfying the determined order type criterion to be processed during a closing period; (v) generate one or more imbalance messages using a reference model, the one or more imbalance messages comprising imbalance information associated with the blind auction; (vi) close, during the closing period, the blind auction based on the permitted one or more orders and using a matching criterion”, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, a human operator can identify an order type by using mathematical concepts of extrapolating one or more bits from a text message, compare them with the data stored in a look-up table and identify an order type for each requested order through the at least one message , determine if the identified order types satisfies a criterion, further apply a filter to permit to process only those orders satisfying the determined order type criterion and also generate one or more imbalance messages using a reference model, the one or more imbalance messages comprising imbalance information associated with the blind auction and take a decision to close the blind auction on determining that one or more orders match a determined criterion. That is, other than reciting “by a processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8 recite “Mental Processes” also using “Mathematical Concepts” of extrapolating and comparing the bits from order messages.
Since the other independent claim 9 recites similar limitations as claim 1, it and its dependent claims 10-16 are analyzed to recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “Mental Processes”.
Since the other independent claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 1, it and its dependent claims 18-20 are analyzed to recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts”.
Since each of the claims 1, 9, and 17 recite limitations falling more than one separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” , and “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-8 and 17-20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components such as a processor executing the steps of : (i) receive the at least one message from the routing system and to execute a blind auction during a first session, wherein, to execute the blind auction, the at least one processor is configured to: (ii) identify an order type in each order requested through the at least one message by: extrapolating one or more bits from each of the at least one message corresponding to an order type field in each of the at least one message; comparing the one or more bits to data in a look-up table stored in one or more databases; and identifying an order type for each requested order through the at least one message based on the comparing of the one or more bits to the data in the look-up table; (iii) determine that one or more of the identified order types satisfies a determined order type criterion; (iv) apply a filter to permit one or more orders that have the one or more of the identified order types satisfying the determined order type criterion to be processed during a closing period; (v) generate one or more imbalance messages using a reference model, the one or more imbalance messages comprising imbalance information associated with the blind auction; (vi) close, during the closing period, the blind auction based on the permitted one or more orders and using a matching criterion; and (vii) transmit a notification message through the routing system to the computer network indicating an outcome of the blind auction.
The limitations “ (i) receive the at least one message from the routing system and to execute a blind auction during a first session, and (vii) transmit a notification message through the routing system to the computer network indicating an outcome of the blind auction. ” are mere data gathering and outputting/conveying recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting/conveying. See MPEP 2106.05. Further, these limitations are recited as being performed by a computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In limitations “(ii) identify an order type in each order requested through the at least one message by: extrapolating one or more bits from each of the at least one message corresponding to an order type field in each of the at least one message; comparing the one or more bits to data in a look-up table stored in one or more databases; and identifying an order type for each requested order through the at least one message based on the comparing of the one or more bits to the data in the look-up table; (iii) determine that one or more of the identified order types satisfies a determined order type criterion; (iv) apply a filter to permit one or more orders that have the one or more of the identified order types satisfying the determined order type criterion to be processed during a closing period; (v) generate one or more imbalance messages using a reference model, the one or more imbalance messages comprising imbalance information associated with the blind auction; (vi) close, during the closing period, the blind auction based on the permitted one or more orders and using a matching criterion;”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the other independent claim 17 recites similar limitations, it is analyzed on the same basis as directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites:
9. A computer-implemented method comprising:
(i) receiving at least one message, each message including a requested order to be executed during a blind auction; and executing the blind auction by:
(ii) applying a filter during a plurality of auction periods to permit one or more requested orders that have an order type satisfying an order type criterion defined for a current auction period, wherein the permitted one or more requested orders are to be processed during a closing period of the blind auction; determining that an imbalance period has started;
(iii) in response to determining that the imbalance period has started, generating, according to a time schedule, one or more imbalance messages using a reference model, wherein the one or more imbalance messages comprise imbalance information associated with the blind auction; and
(iv) closing, during the closing period, the blind auction based on the permitted one or more orders and using a matching criterion; and
(v) transmitting a notification message indicative of an outcome of the blind auction.
All the above limitations, which are similar to claim 1 were considered reciting an abstract idea related to certain methods of organizing human activity comprising conducting a blind auction and including “Mental Processes. Though the preamble in claim 9 recites “A computer -implemented method comprising”, the body of the claim does not recite any engagement of a computer device in executing the steps, which can be interpreted as being done manually. As such, when claim 9 is analyzed per Step 2A, Prong Two it does not include any additional elements. Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements are not recited which can integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim 9 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Dependent claims: Claim 2 recites conducting different types of actions, clam 3 recites generating , for each created imbalance message, several fields comprising a symbol field indicative of a symbol associated with a security; a reference price field, a reference buy shares field associated with a total number of shares for a buy side of an order ….;a reference sell shares field associated , and an indicative price field associated with a first type of closing price; and an auction only price field associated with a second type of closing price. Claim 4 recites merely non-functional descriptive matter related to types of closing prices. Claims 5, 6 and 8 recite merely the processes of conducting the organized human activity of a blind auction including several periods, and different activities related to an auction process. The limitations of these dependent claims 2-6, 8 merely expand the scope of the limitations discussed for their base claim 1 reciting abstract ideas being performed by generic computer components and do not add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-6, 8 are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations, “ a timing circuit configured to provide a signal to the at least one processor indicating a time of day; and the one or more databases configured to store the look-up table, a set of order type criteria including the determined order type criterion, and a set of matching criteria including the matching criterion, wherein the set of order type criteria and the matching criteria are respectively defined for each period of auction periods of the blind auction; wherein the at least one processor is configured to apply the filter, at each period of the auction periods of the blind auction, to permit the one or more orders based on a time stamp associated with each requested order, a respective order type criterion for each period, and the time of day indicated by the signal received from the timing circuit. “, recite
auction-filtering rules and timing-based order processing, for conducting an abstract commercial activity for a blind auction. Though "timing circuit" and stored criteria add technical detail, the claim still does not clearly recite a specific unconventional technical improvement to amount to a practical application of the abstract idea and the presence of significantly more is not firmly established. The steps reciting period-based filters, order type criteria, and order timestamps amounts to an abstract method of organizing auction activity and do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is directed to the abstract idea.
Examiner has reviewed the limitations of the dependent claims 10-16 and 18-20, which recite limitations similar to the ones already considered for claims 1-8 and based on the same analysis they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. They are directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims 1-20 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements comprising receiving data and transmitting data were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/ outputting/displaying /presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/ displaying/ presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus , claims 1-20 , as recited, are patent ineligible.
2. Prior art Discussion:
Reference claims 1-8 and 17-20, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations comprising, as a whole, a processor performing a blind auction executes identifying an order type in each order requested through the at least one message by: extrapolating one or more bits from each of the at least one message corresponding to an order type field in each of the at least one message; comparing the one or more bits to data in a look-up table stored in one or more databases; and identifying an order type for each requested order through the at least one message based on the comparing of the one or more bits to the data in the look-up table; apply a filter to permit one or more orders that have the one or more of the identified order types satisfying the determined order type criterion to be processed during a closing period; generating one or more imbalance messages using a reference model, the one or more imbalance messages comprising imbalance information associated with the blind auction [See independent claims 1 and 17. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1, and claims 18-20 depend from 17.
Reference claims 9-16, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations comprising, as a whole, applying a filter during a plurality of auction periods to permit one or more requested orders that have an order type satisfying an order type criterion defined for a current [blind] auction period, wherein the permitted one or more requested orders are to be processed during a closing period of the blind auction; determining that an imbalance period has started; in response to determining that the imbalance period has started, generating, according to a time schedule, one or more imbalance messages using a reference model, wherein the one or more imbalance messages comprise imbalance information associated with the blind auction; and closing, during the closing period, the blind auction based on the permitted one or more orders and using a matching criterion [See claim 9 and claims 10-16 depend from claim 9].
Discussion of the most relevant prior art: The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention.
(i) Friedman et al. [US 20140089126 A1; see paras 0071 and 0093] describes a computerized system comprising an auction engine implementing a blind auction following predetermined rules by maintaining timers during the auction progress, when the auction can end (including when auctions can be extended), and when programmatic bidding can occur and the bids can be processed in near real-time. The auction database is updated In response to receiving a bid 211 signal.
(ii) Brosnan et al. [US 20200311758 A1 [See paras 0002 and 0045] describes a reverse auction, wherein the sellers compete to obtain business from the buyer by underbidding each other to obtain the buyer business and this reverse can also be a blind auction where each seller (e.g., bidder) provides only one bid. The bids are then collected and provided to the buyer who selects the winning bid. Further, a profile engine in the auction application identifies additional user preferences or user characteristics by monitoring past purchases and browser history.
(iii) Talbot et al. [US 20020116312 A1; see para 0021] describes a Reverse Blind Credit Auction program 150 being implemented by a Reverse Blind Credit Auction server 100 and a Credit Report process executes on Credit Report server 120.
NPL reference:
(iv) ARXiv Article by Julius Bonart & Martin D. Gould; “ Latency and Liquidity Provision in a Limit Order Book “; ARXIV ID: 1511.04116; Publication Date: 2015-11-12; Last Update Date: 2016-06-24; retrieved from IP.COM on 06/03/2026 describes that in most modern financial markets, trade occurs via a continuous double-auction mechanism called a limit order book (LOB) , in which traders interact by submitting two types of orders: market orders, which consume liquidity, and limit orders, which supply it. Whenever an institution submits a buy (respectively, sell) order x, an LOB’s trade-matching algorithm checks whether it is possible for x to match to an active sell (respectively, buy) order y such that py ≤ px (respectively, py ≥ px). If so, the matching occurs immediately and the owners of the relevant orders agree a trade for the specified amount at the specified price. If not, then x becomes active at the price px, and it remains active until it either matches to an incoming sell (respectively, buy) order or is cancelled by its owner. Orders that match upon arrival are called market orders. Orders that do not match upon arrival are called limit orders, and become active. An LOB L(t) is the collection of all active orders for a given asset on a given platform at a given time t. Trading excludes market activity during the first and last 1000 seconds of each trading day, to remove any abnormal trading behaviour that can occur shortly after the opening auction or shortly before the closing auction.
Foreign reference:
(v) EP 1345145 A2 [see claims] describes a data processing system comprising a filter system for comparing an electronic proposed purchase order document with trading qualification criteria to determine whether the electronic proposed purchase order document complies with the trading qualification criteria and for preventing the generation of the electronic purchase order document if the electronic proposed purchase order document does not meet the trading qualification criteria.
4. Allowability Note: If the independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are amended to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, the application can be placed in condition for allowance. All amendments will be subject to reconsideration and search.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights