DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made this application is a continuation of 18/539,900 filed on 12/14/2023 (PAT 12,198,193) which is a continuation of 17/854,548 filed on June 30, 2022 (PAT 11,861,707) which is a continuation of 16/808,632 filed on March 4, 2020 (PAT 11,410,236) which is a continuation 15/836,294 filed on December 8, 2017 (PAT 10,607,291).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 in the last limitation of “transmit information…..” preceded by “[0001]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 of instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over of U. S. Patent No.10,607,291; 11,410,236; 11,861,707; and 12,198,193, since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
“comparing the first set of unitary-valued attributes from a first record corresponding to a first incoming electronic trading order for the tradable instrument corresponding to the variant inventory to the second set of unitary-valued attributes from a second record from a plurality of second records each corresponding to one of the stored electronic trading orders in the monitored database in real-time; comparing the second set of set-valued attributes from the first record to the second set of set-valued attributes of the second record; identifying a transaction for the first incoming electronic trading order when at least: for each of one or more second records from the plurality of second records, said comparing the first record to the second record includes determining a successful match of the first record to the second record where: (A) the exactly one data item specified as the value of a particular unitary-valued attribute in the first set of unitary-valued attributes of the first record matches the exactly one data item specified as the value of a corresponding unitary-valued attribute in the first set of unitary-valued attributes of the second record; and (B) at least one data item in the set of multiple data items specified as the value of a particular set-valued attribute of the first record matches a data item in the set of multiple data items specified as the value of the corresponding set-valued attribute in the second set of set-valued attributes of the second record; update the monitored database in accordance with the identified transaction; and transmit information corresponding to the identified transaction.”
The instant application does not recite: a processing system, including at least one hardware-based processor, configured to perform real-time electronic continuous matching and trading operations comprising: the second set of unitary-valued attributes being stored in the first area of the at least one memory; and only if said comparing the first set of unitary-valued attributes from the first record to the second set of unitary-valued attributes from the second record results in a successful match for unitary-valued attributes in the first record, accessing the second set of set-valued attributes in the second area of the at least one memory, wherein the first set of unitary-valued attributes and/or the second set of set-valued attributes include attributes for periodic delivery of the variant inventory, wherein the particular unitary-valued attribute in the first set of unitary-valued attributes and/or the particular set-valued attribute of the first record include one or more of said attributes for periodic delivery of the variant inventory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per amended claim 13, the claim recites " the second set of set-valued attributes of the stored electronic trading order is stored separately from the first set of unitary-valued attributes of the stored electronic trading order in the at least one memory and/or the monitored database” which is not supported by the disclosures as submitted including the written description. Examiner reviewed support for the above claim limitation in the disclosures submitted:
[0075] Each order and its data structure(s) may be configured in order to minimize the storage space used by the order book database and/or to speed up access to the orders during lookup/search operations. For example, the matching list attributes of an order may be linked to the rest of the order (e.g., the part of the order record with the non-matching list attributes) by one or more pointers. This may facilitate storing the matching list attributes separately in physical memory from the rest of the order. This may also facilitate retrieving the matching list attributes of an order during the matching process only if the non-matching list portions of the order is matched, thus in many cases avoiding the additional time and the excess memory bus traffic that can be caused by retrieving matching lists corresponding to each and every order that is used in a comparison during matching..
The written description only supports “storing the matching list attributes separately in physical memory from the rest of the order” but not “the second set of set-valued attributes of the stored electronic trading order is stored separately from the first set of unitary-valued attributes of the stored electronic trading order”.
Applicant requested to cite a portion of submitted written description/disclosure where support for above limitation is disclosed, otherwise the limitation would constitute a new matter.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
In the instant case, Claims 1-20 are directed to identifying a transaction for the incoming electronic trading order by comparing unitary-valued attributes and set-valued attributes stored in monitored inventory database based on matching rules, updating the database and transmitting information corresponding to the transaction. The claims 1-20 are analyzed to see if claims are statutory category of invention, recites judicial exception and the claims are further analyzed to see if the claims are integrated into practical application if the judicial exception is recited and the claims provides an inventive as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility as set forth below:
3. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 106.03.
Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising at least a memory and a processing system, for electronic trading. The claimed system is therefore directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (a combination of device) (Step 1: YES).
Claim 19 is directed to a process; i.e., a series of method steps or acts of trading system processing electronic trading. A process is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is a manufacture. The claim, thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. There are no nature- based product limitations in this claim, and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are similar and they are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recite plurality of steps of “comparing the first set of unitary-valued attributes from a first record corresponding to a first incoming electronic trading order to the second set of unitary- valued attributes, comparing the second set of set-valued attributes from the first record to the second set of set-valued attributes of the second record, identifying a transaction for the first incoming electronic trading order, and determining a successful match of the first record to the second record.”
The limitation of comparing the first set of unitary-valued attributes to the second set of unitary- valued attributes, comparing the second set of set-valued attributes from the first record to the second set of set-valued attributes of the second record, identifying a transaction, and determining a successful match of the first record to the second record, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, similar to Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “comparing the first set of unitary-valued attributes and the second set of set-valued attributes, identifying a transaction, and determining a successful match” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually comparing two accessible records, identifying transaction and determining match. The limitation of identifying and matching a transaction for the incoming electronic trading order (based on steps of comparing as discussed earlier), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “identifying a transaction” in the context of this claim encompasses the user taking steps of response based on comparing two records. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (YES).
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? 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. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract idea as described in Prong 1, the claim recites the additional elements of the processor performing “update the monitored database in accordance with the identified transaction and transmit information corresponding to the identified transaction.”
An evaluation of whether Step 2A are insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, this additional element represents mere data gathering/comparing, identifying and matching transaction that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception in updating and transmitting information. Processor is also an additional element which is configured to carry out limitations in Step2A.e., it is the tool that is used in steps described in Prong 1. But the computing device/processor is recited so generically without any details that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a controller. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computer does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive concept? 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. MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, there are two additional elements.
The first is the processor which is configured to perform all the limitations recited. As explained previously, the computing device is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is limitation of update the monitored database in accordance with the identified transaction, and transmit information corresponding to the identified transaction, which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the recitation of a computing device being configured to updating and transmitting information the result is mere data gathering/updating and transmitting information is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more.
Looking at the combination of elements in claims 1, 19 and 20, it fails to show an inventive concept. Unlike the eligible claims in Diehr, Enfish, Bascom and McRO, in which the elements limiting the exception were individually conventional but taken together provided an inventive concept because they improved a technical field or providing a technical solution to a technical problem, the claim here does not invoke any of the considerations that courts have identified as providing significantly more than an exception. The claims as recited is simply a process in which computer are invoked merely as a tool for implementing abstract ideas of identifying and matching transaction, updating a database and transmitting information corresponding to the transaction rather than specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities such as the self-referential table for computer database in the Enfish or remote filtering tool at a specific location customizable filtering features specific to each end user" in Bascom or "effect an improvement in technology or technical field" in McRO. Claims as recited do not provide any particular asserted inventive technology for performing those functions and therefore the claims are held patent ineligible (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
It is to be noted that the court rejected abstract idea of "filtering content in the Internet" in step one analysis of Mayo in Bascom, which is similar to claims in the instant application with respect to identifying and matching transaction by comparing unitary-valued attributes and set-valued attributes stored in monitored inventory database. It is only the significantly more steps that enabled of "installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end” as described in step two analysis of Mayo of the court decision made the claims in Bascom patent eligible. The claims in the instant application are directed to an abstract idea performed on generic computer components, "without providing a specific technical solution beyond simply using generic computer in a conventional way” in contrast to Bascom which presented a “technology-based solution” of filtering content on the Internet by providing customizable filter specific to each user at specific location remote from end-user. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claims are not eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner further reviewed the dependent claims 2-18 that could be added to the independent claims to make patent eligible. The dependent claims as recited pertains to additional steps of “comparing attributes, attributes representing delivery aspects, delivery aspect in advertising, storing and retrieving attributes, matching rules for the comparing ” which is again covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as described above. These dependent claims do not provide additional elements significantly more than the purported abstract idea of updating a database and transmitting information corresponding to the transaction that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims as recited would not make the independent claim significantly more by incorporating them into the independent claims 1, 19 and 20. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 13-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Schreiber et al., U.S. Pub No. 2002/0138353 (reference A in attached PTO-892).
As per claims 1, 19 and 20, Schreiber et al. teach an electronic trading system, comprising:
at least one memory having a monitored database of a dynamically changing set of stored electronic trading orders for a tradable instrument corresponding to a variant inventory (see Fig. 1, Transaction Server (150), Transaction Analyzer (160): paragraph [0022, 0066]; where trading/transaction order/request are uploaded or stored in memory of monitored transaction server by transaction analyzer),
each electronic trading order being in the form of a record having a plurality of attributes including a first set of unitary-valued attributes and a second set of set-valued attributes associated with the first set of unitary-valued attributes wherein each unitary- valued attribute in the first set has exactly one data item specified in the record as its value, and at least one of the set-valued attributes of the second set has a plurality of data items specified in the record as its value (see paragraph [0004, 0018-0019, 0130-0131]; where electronic orders of buyer and seller in form of record with single-valued attribute and set-valued attributes with pluralities of value fields),
wherein the plurality of data items comprises at least one data item at a first level of granularity and another at least one data item at a second level of granularity (see Fig. 7, where ALL Cars (720) is at first level of generality that include all colors., make and year, and Level 750 represents second level of generality that include red car, blue car, Ford, GE, cars with make of year 1999 and 2000), and
a processing system, including at least one hardware-based processor (see Fig. 1, Transaction Analyzer (160), Transaction Server (150)), configured to perform operations comprising:
comparing the first set of unitary-valued attributes from a first record corresponding to a first incoming electronic trading order to the second set of unitary- valued attributes from a second record from a plurality of second records each corresponding to one of the stored electronic trading orders in the monitored database in real-time (see paragraph [0129-0131]); where queries include single -valued fields to set-set queries); and
comparing the second set of set-valued attributes from the first record to the second set of set-valued attributes of the second record (see Buyer Transaction Requirement: Table I, Primary Parameter (or Unitary Value Attribute): Make (Ford or Chevrolet); Seller Requirement: Table II: Make Ford: Fig. 7: FORD (1,2,5,6) (750) -> Blue, FORD , 99 (2) and Blue, FORD, 00 (6); paragraph [0064, 0100-0103]; where only matching of requirement of car maker FORD of buyer is matched with available from seller is considered and Car make Chevrolet is not matched and other parameters including set-value attributes are considered for those available for matched for only Car make FORD as shown in Steps 750, 760 and 770 and result is presented in Table III with matching of other unitary value attributes of Model, Color, and Price, and set-value attributes of Delivery and Payment Terms), and comparing the second set of set-valued attributes from the first record to the second set of set-valued attributes of the second record (see paragraph [0130-0132]);
identifying a transaction for the first incoming electronic trading order (see Payment Terms -> Table I: paragraph [0062] and Table II: paragraph [0063]; where payment terms of buyer and seller is not identical but results in acceptable transaction as displayed and described in Table III: paragraph [0064] for overlap description of payment terms of set-valued attributes for 50% on delivery; 50% remaining balance within 30 days of delivery) when at least:
for each of one or more second records from the plurality of second records, said comparing the first record to the second record includes determining a successful match of the first record to the second record (see Table I: Buyer Transaction Description and Table I: Seller Transaction Description is matched) where:
(A) the exactly one data item specified as the value of a particular unitary-valued attribute in the first set of unitary-valued attributes of the first record is identical to the exactly one data item specified as the value of a corresponding unitary-valued attribute in the first set of unitary-valued attributes of the second record: and (B) at least one data item in the set of multiple data items specified as the value of a particular set-valued attribute of the first record is identical to a data item in the set of multiple data items specified as the value of the corresponding set valued attribute in the second set of set-valued attributes of the second record (see Table III: paragraph [0064]; where only available car Make FORD out of many car is matched for unitary and set-value attribute with the matched buyer and the seller);
update the monitored database in accordance with the transaction (see paragraph [0074-0075, and 0078]; where transaction request in the database automatically updated according expiration or express removal or modification transaction on partial completion of a transaction); and
transmit information corresponding to the identified transaction (see paragraph [0076-0077, 0097-0098]; where user/buyer/seller is transmitted notification when compatible description is matched/identified via on-line/e-mail).
As per claim 2, Schreiber et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the particular set valued attribute is the at least one of the set-valued attributes, wherein the at least one data item at the first level of granularity in the second record matches a corresponding first data item in the first record (see Payment Terms -> Table I: paragraph [0062] and Table II: paragraph [0063]; where payment terms of buyer and seller is not identical but results in acceptable transaction as displayed and described in Table III: paragraph [0064] for overlap description of payment terms of set-valued attributes for 50% on delivery; 50% remaining balance within 30 days of delivery) and
the another at least one item at the second level of granularity matches a corresponding second data item that is at the first level of granularity or the second level of granularity in the first record, wherein when the corresponding second data item is at the first level of granularity, the another at least one item is a child item of the corresponding second data item that is at the first level of granularity Table I: Make Ford or Chevrolet (Year 1998, 1999 or 20000 (Second Level of Granularity) matches Table II: Make Ford (Year1998) (first Level of Granularity) as shown by Match in Table III)..
As per claim 3, Schreiber et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the comparing the first record to the second record results in the transaction for the first incoming electronic trading order being identified if the comparing the first record to the second record includes further determining that for each attribute in corresponding second sets of set-valued attributes, a non-zero intersection between said first record and the second record (see Table III: paragraph [0011, 0030, 0064]; where Table III is overlap or non-empty or non-zero transaction intersection of buyer transaction in Table I and seller transaction in Table II).
As per claim 6, Schreiber et al. teach claim 3 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the comparing the first record to the second record results in the transaction for the first incoming electronic trading order being identified if the comparing the first record to the second record further includes, when another particular attribute is designated in the first record as a defined list, determining that all data items specified as a value of the particular attribute in the first record matches data items specified as a value of the particular attribute in the second record (see Table I and Table II; where comparing Table I and Table II indicates Unitary value attributes of Car Make, Model, Color Price and Parties and other attributes of deliver period and payment terns is defined by the buyer as requirements which is patched with offer from plurality of sellers and seller offer in Table II is identified as match which is acceptable to buyer and seller as shown in Table III).
As per claim 7, Schreiber et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the comparing the first record to the second record further comprises performing said comparing the second set of set-valued attributes of the first record to the second set of set-valued attributes of the second record only if said comparing the first set of unitary-valued attributes from the first record to the second set of unitary-valued attributes from the second record results in a successful match for all unitary-valued attributes in the first record (see Table I and Table II: Set-Valued Attributes: Delivery and Payment Terms; where set valued attributes of Delivery period and Payment Terms with delivery condition is successfully match by considering unitary attribute of each available delivery date between November 1-15, 2000 and Payment Terms of at most 50% and remaining balance within at least 30 days of delivery for buyer transaction for only car make FORD that is matched and available from matched Seller and but not applicable other car Chevrolet that is not matched by the seller)
As per claim 8, Schreiber et al. teach claim 7 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
one or more attributes of the second set of set-valued attributes represent delivery aspects of a tradable instrument (see Table I and II: Delivery and payment Terms with delivery conditions).
As per claim 13, Schreiber et al. teach claim 7 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the second set of set-valued attributes of the stored electronic trading order is stored separately from the first set of unitary-valued attributes of the stored electronic trading order in the at least one memory and/or the monitored database (see paragraph [0131]; where single or unitary valued field stored differently than set-valued fiend in database with set-valued field storing a plurality of values such as enumeration of values or range of values in distinct from conventional singled-valued field storing single/unitary values for parameters), and
is retrieved if said comparing the first set of unitary-valued attributes from the first record to the second set of unitary-valued attributes from the second record results is a successful match and is not retrieved if said comparing the first set of unitary-valued attributes from the first record to the second set of unitary-valued attributes from the second record results is not a successful match (See Table I, II and III: paragraph [0062-0065]; where only matched single-valued attribute of car Make FORD is selected and presented as shown in Table III but unmatched car make of Chevrolet is neither retrieved nor presented).
As per claim 14, Schreiber et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the monitored database includes stored electronic trading orders for a second tradable instrument, and wherein the first set of unitary-valued attributes of the second tradable instrument is different in a number of attributes and/or a type of attributes, from the first set of unitary-valued attributes of the first tradable instrument (see Fig. 1, Buyer Transactions (120), Seller Transactions (140), Matched Transaction (170): paragraph [0006-0008, 0066]; where transactions for plurality type of tradable instruments (not necessarily same type of instruments having same attributes) such as traded in eBay with different number of attributes which is uploaded to transaction server 150 that is monitored and analyzed by transaction analyzer 160).
As per claim 15, Schreiber et al. teach claim 14 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the second set of set-valued attributes of the second tradable instrument is different in a number of attributes and/or a type of attributes, from the second set of set-valued attributes of the first tradable instrument (see Fig. 2, Parameter (P3): Buyer Value (A3B3), Seller Value (C3D3): paragraph [0066]; where parameter P3 for buyer and seller do not have combination of value that satisfy both buyer and seller).
As per claim 16, Schreiber et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the first set of unitary-valued attributes include a first subset of instrument family level attributes that are common to two or more tradable instruments in the electronic trading system, and a second subset of instrument level attributes, wherein a combined first subset and the second subset form a unique instrument descriptor in the electronic trading system (see Table I, II and III; where Table III derived from matching of attributes that is common or overlapped between Table I of buyer transaction order and Table II of seller transaction order).
As per claim 17, Schreiber et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
said comparing the first record to the second record is performed in accordance with matching rules, wherein the matching rules include one or more rules specifying that an incoming electronic trading order is matched in accordance with a type of the tradable instrument, a family of the tradable instrument, a price of the incoming electronic trading order, one or more set valued attributes of the tradable instrument, and on a quantity of the incoming electronic trading order, according to a predetermined ordering (see Table I and II; where buyer and seller transaction record are matched based on comparing attributes of Car make, Model, Color, Price, Delivery, Payment and Parties with State of California as geographic region as submitted and uploaded to a transaction server 150 as shown in Fig. 1).
As per claim 18, Schreiber et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the stored electronic trading orders include orders for inventories of at least one of advertising futures, container shipment futures, stock swaps, designer CDOs, extended sets of oil and industrial chemicals varieties futures, FLEX options, reinsurance, food products, alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages, mining products, paper and pulp products, automotive products, lumber and wood products, satellite services, and unstructured debt obligations (see Table I and II, Car Make: Ford, Buyer: Auto Industries, Seller: Cars, Inc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber et al., U.S. Pub No.2002/0138353 (reference A in attached PTO-892 in view of Lamba et al., U.S. Pub No. 2014/0149105 (reference B in attached PTO-892).
As per claim 4, Schreiber et al. teach claim 3 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the comparing the first record to the second record results in the transaction for the first incoming electronic trading order being identified if the comparing the first record to the second record further includes, when another particular attribute is designated in the first record as a whitelist, determining that all data items specified as a value of the particular attribute in the second record is a subset of data items specified as a value of the particular attribute in the first record (see Fig. 7< Steps 750 and 770: FORD (or F); Table III: paragraph [0064]; where all the parameters in buyer transaction in Table I matches/satisfied with all parameters in seller transaction in Table II resulting acceptable transaction as shown in Table III).
Schreiber et al. do not teach white listing specify condition of rule to be satisfied in order for product be selected.
Lamba teaches white listing specify condition of rule to be satisfied in order for product be selected (Lamba, paragraph [0027, 0049]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to above features taught by Lamba et al. to Schreiber et al. because Lamba et al. teaches including above features would enable to select a product by applying rules to take action of excluding or section of product based on correspondence attribute of a product and document (Lamba et al. paragraph [0027-0028])..
As per claim 5, Schreiber et al. teach claim 1 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the comparing the first record to the second record results in the transaction for the first incoming electronic trading order being identified if the comparing the first record to the second record further includes, when another particular attribute is designated in the first record as a blacklist, determining that no data items specified as a value of the particular attribute in first record matches any data item of the particular attribute in the second record (see Fig. 2, Parameter P3, Buyer value: A3B3, Seller Value:C3D3: paragraph [0067];: where buyer parameter value A3B3 (Make: Chevrolet in Table I) and seller parameter value (Make: Ford in Table II) do overlap resulting black list or null transaction).
Schreiber et al. do not teach black listing specify condition of rule to be satisfied in order for product be excluded.
Lamba teaches Black listing specify condition of rule to be satisfied in order for product be excluded (Lamba, paragraph [0027-0028, 0049]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to above features taught by Lamba et al. to Schreiber et al. because Lamba et al. teaches including above features would enable to remove a product from among the candidate as a part of pruning (Lamba et al., Fig. 3, Step 310: paragraph [0049]).
Claims 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber et al., U.S. Pub No.2002/0138353 (reference A in attached PTO-892)) in view of Chickering et al., U.S. Pub No. 2011/0258045 (reference C in attached PTO-892).
As per claim 9, Schreiber et al. teach claim 8 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the delivery aspects specified in the incoming electronic trading order include a plurality of values for a delivery dates requirement, gender requirements, marital status requirements, education level requirements, or geography requirements, of a target audience for the advertising (see Table I and II: Delivery Period, Geographic Requirement: Parties -> State: CA).
Schreiber et al. do not teach the tradable instrument represents an advertising in one or more delivery medium.
Chickering et al. teach the tradable instrument represents an advertising in one or more delivery medium (Chickering et al., Fig. 1, Webpages (126): paragraph [0021]’ where advertisement is delivered through web pages, e-mail or other electronic messages).
Chickering et al. further teach wherein the delivery aspects specified in the incoming electronic trading order include a plurality of values for a delivery dates requirement, gender requirements, marital status requirements, education level requirements, or geography requirements, of a target audience for the advertising (Chickering et al., paragraph [0024, 0030, 0033]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to above features taught by Chickering to Schreiber et al. because Chickering teaches including above features would enable to advertisers to place order for ad impression based on plurality attributes and the order is matched based on constraints to inventory and/or ad impressions that satisfy the constraints (Chickering et al., paragraph [0033]).
As per claim 11, Schreiber et al. teach claim 9 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the delivery aspects specified in the incoming electronic trading order include a geographic attribute for which values are specified at a first level of a multi-level hierarchy (see Table I and II: Parties: State: CA) and
wherein the delivery aspects specified in the stored electronic trading order include the geographic attribute for which values are specified at a second level of the multi-level hierarchy Table I and II: Delivery Period; Payment Terms: Remaining Balance within at least 30 days of delivery).
As per claim 12, Schreiber et al. teach claim 8 as described above.
Schreiber et al. do not teach the system, wherein the tradable instrument represents an advertising in one or more delivery medium, and wherein the delivery aspects specified in the incoming electronic trading order include a plurality of data items specified as a value for an attribute representing ad size requirements, ad publisher sites, display creatives, pacing of advertisements, or brands associated with the advertising.
Chickering et al. the tradable instrument represents an advertising in one or more delivery medium (Chickering et al., Fig. 1, Webpages (126): paragraph [0021]; where advertisement is delivered through web pages, e-mail or other electronic messages), and wherein the delivery aspects specified in the incoming electronic trading order include a plurality of data items specified as a value for an attribute representing ad size requirements, ad publisher sites, display creatives, pacing of advertisements, or brands associated with the advertising (Chickering et al., paragraph [0020-0022]; where advertisement is delivered in reserved space in a webpage).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to above features taught by Chickering to Schreiber et al. because Chickering teaches including above features would enable to advertisers to place order for ad impression based on plurality attributes and the order is matched based on constraints to inventory and/or ad impressions that satisfy the constraints (Chickering et al., paragraph [0033]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber et al., U.S. Pub No.2002/0138353 (reference A in attached PTO-892) in view of Chickering et al., U.S. Pub No.2011/0258045 (reference C in attached PTO-892) and Ujihara, U.S. Patent No. 8,151,290 (reference D in attached PTO-892).
As per claim 10, Schreiber et al. teach claim 9 as described above. Schreiber et al. further teach the system, wherein
the delivery aspects specified in the incoming electronic trading order include a plurality of data items specified as a value for a delivery dates requirement (see Table I and II: Delivery Period: Buyer -> November 1-15, 2000; Seller -> Oct. 25 – Nov. 5, 2000).
Schreiber et al. do not teach specifying a value for a delivery dates requirement in a bitmap.
Ujihara teaches specifying a value for a delivery dates requirement in a bitmap (Ujihara, Fig. 3, Select Date (1326), Select bitmap time (1328) and Select bitmap day (1330), Select duration (1332): column 9, lines 11-67).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying a value for a delivery dates requirement in a bitmap to Schreiber et al. because Ujihara teaches including above features would enable to speed processing day data stored in bitmap form (Ujihara, column 9, lines 53-54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosures. The following are pertinent to current invention, though not relied upon:
An et al. (U.S. 2013/0117400) teach electronic documentation distribution.
Cosman (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0251875) teaches defending and managing multi-dimensional advertising impression inventory.
Feldschuh (U.S. Patent No. 9,767,127) teaches record linkage from multiple sources.
Hughes, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,244,622) teach order matching process and method.
Jeevans (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0127367) teaches privately performing application security analysis.
Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,978,785) teach object oriented case-based reasoning framework mechanism.
Le Biannic (U.S. Pub No. 2017/0371949) teaches identification of common attributes in multiple datasets.
McBeath et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,249,607) teach scheduling wireless communication systems.
Roy et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2009/0228327) teach rapid statistics estimation for direct email marketing.
Stefani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,601,000) teach conditi9nally updating an item with attribute granularity.
Takahashi (U.S. Pub No. 2015/0339488) teaches information processing device
Vee et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2010/0185485) teaches allocation of Internet advertising inventory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA whose telephone number is (571) 270-1374. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Respectfully submitted,
/BIJENDRA K SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 12/25/2025