DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 4/16/2025. Claim 1 has been cancelled. New claims 2-21 are pending and have been examined. The rejection is stated below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 2/6/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting (Obviousness-type)
Claims 1, 15 and 21 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of US Patent No. 12,248,984 (‘984 hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 10 of the ‘984 Patent recite all the limitations of independent claims 2, 15 and 21 of the instant application as indicated in the comparison table below.
Claims of 19/047,219
Claims of 12,248,984
2. (New) A computer system for dynamically generating matching engines, the computer system comprising:
a reference database that is stored on a non-transitory storage medium, the reference database including:
1) a plurality of standard data structures that each include at least one predefined field to be specified by a participant, and
2) a plurality of participant defined data structures that are based on one of the plurality of standard data structures, each of the plurality of participant defined data structures including a respective participant defined field, wherein each respective participant defined field is not included in the one of the plurality of standard data structures;
the non-transitory storage medium configured to store a matching workflow engine that comprises instructions, the matching workflow engine being configurable in accordance with which of the plurality of standard data structures and/or the plurality of participant defined data structures is applied for a given instance thereof;
a processing system that includes at least one hardware processor, the processing system configured to perform operations comprising:
processing a first data transaction request received from a first participant, the first data transaction request based on a first participant data structure of the plurality of participant defined data structures;
processing a second data transaction request that is based on a second participant data structure of the plurality of participant defined data structures, wherein the first participant data structure and the second participant data structure are both based on a first standard data structure out of the plurality of standard data structures, but include different participant defined fields;
as a result of processing of the first data transaction request that is received from the first participant, (a) instantiating a first instance of the matching workflow engine and configuring the first instance based on at least one parameter included in the first participant data structure, (b) creating a first order book data structure that is based on the first participant data structure, and (c) adding the first data transaction request to the first order book data structure;
as a result of processing of the second data transaction request, (a) instantiating a second instance of the matching workflow engine and configuring the second instance based on at least parameter included in the second participant data structure, (b) creating a second order book data structure that is based on the second participant data structure, and (c) adding the second data transaction request to the second order book data structure;
subsequent to creation of the first or second order book data structure, processing other data transaction requests that have been received and are based on the first or second participant data structure and inserting the other data transaction requests into the first or second order book data structure;
executing a first matching process, in connection with the first instance of the matching workflow engine, to determine at least one match based on one or more data transaction requests that are included within the first order book data structure; and
executing a second matching process, in connection with the second instance of the matching workflow engine, to determine at least one match based on at least one data transaction request(s) that are included within the second order book data structure.
1. A computer system comprising:
a reference database that is stored on a non-transitory storage medium, the reference database including:
1) a plurality of standard data structures that each include at least one predefined field to be specified by a participant, and 2) a plurality of participant defined data structures that are based on one of the plurality of standard data structures, each of the plurality of participant defined data structures including a respective participant defined field, wherein each respective participant
defined field is not included in the one of the plurality of standard data structures;
a matching workflow engine comprising instructions stored to the non-transitory storage medium and configurable based on which one of the plurality of standard data structures or the plurality of participant defined data structures are defined;
a processing system that includes at least one hardware processor, the processing system configured to:
receive a first data transaction request that is based on a first participant data structure of the plurality of participant defined data structures;
receive a second first data transaction request that is based on a second participant data structure of the plurality of participant defined data structures, wherein the first participant data structure and the second participant data structure are based on the same one of the plurality of standard data structures, but include different participant defined fields;
based on reception of the first data transaction request, (a) instantiate a first instance of the matching workflow engine and configure the first instance based on at least one parameter included in the first participant data structure, (b) create a first order book data structure that is based on the first participant data structure, (c) and add the first data transaction request to the first order book data structure;
based on reception of the second data transaction request, (a) instantiate a second instance of the matching workflow engine and configure the second instance based on at least parameter included in the second participant data structure, (b) create a second
order book data structure that is based on the second participant data structure, (c) and add the second data transaction request to the second order book data structure;
subsequent to creation of the first or second order book data structure, receive other data transaction requests that are based on the first or second participant data structure and insert the other data transaction requests into the first or second order book data structure;
perform a matching process, in connection with the first and second instance, to determine at least one match for data transaction requests that are included within
the first or second order book data structures;
receive a first request for quote (RFQ) data transaction request that is based on one of the plurality of standard data structures or one of the plurality of participant defined data structures;
receive a plurality of responsive RFQ data transaction requests that are provided in response to the request for quote data transaction request; and
match at least one of the plurality of responsive RFQ data transaction requests to the first RFQ data transaction request.
Claim 15
Claim 10
Claim 21
Claim 1
Dependent claims 3-14 and 16-20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Claims 2-21 are 35 U.S.C. 101 eligible because the limitations “based on reception of the first data transaction request, (a) instantiate a first instance of the matching workflow engine and configure the first instance based on at least one parameter included in the first participant data structure, (b) create a first order book data structure that is based on the first participant data structure, (c) and add the first data transaction request to the first order book data structure;” and “based on reception of the second data transaction request, (a) instantiate a second instance of the matching workflow engine and configure the second instance based on at least parameter included in the second participant data structure, (b) create a second order book data structure that is based on the second participant data structure, (c) and add the second data transaction request to the second order book data structure;” integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as was explained in the Patent Board Decision of 10/16/2024 in the parent case 16/784,355 as follows:
‘“We find the limitations representing these features, i.e., "based on reception of the first data transaction request, (a) instantiate a first instance of the matching workflow engine and configure the first instance based on at least one parameter included in the first participant data structure, (b) create a first order book data structure that is based on the first participant data structure, (c) and add the first data transaction request to the first order book data structure"; and "based on reception of the second data transaction request, (a) instantiate a second instance of the matching workflow engine and configure the first instance based on at least one parameter included in the first participant data structure, (b) create a first order book data structure that is based on the second participant data structure, (c) and add the second data transaction request to the second order book data structure" integrate the various abstract ideas of matching of claim 1 into a practical application to implement the claimed "computer system." See Spec. ¶¶ 24-26. Our finding is consistent with Appellant's arguments quoted supra.
Furthermore, Appellant persuasively argues,
The claimed technical features are accordingly not mere
instructions to apply the Final Rejection's abstract idea of 'a
series of steps for matching financial transaction requests, i.e.
financial contracts' to a computer. Instead, they provide a
practical application for how to technically implement a new
type of computer system that provides an improved electronic
exchange.
Reply Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).
We find Appellant's argument persuasive that carrying out the two limitations, supra, "based on reception of the (a) instantiate", provide improvements to the underlying technology or technical field, namely, electronic exchange trading platforms development technology. See Appeal Br. 17; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) or, alternatively, § 2106.05(e) "Other Meaningful Limitations." We note that instantiation involves allocating memory for one or more software "objects" at runtime, which is incapable of being performed in the human mind as a mental step.
We find these other meaningful limitations identified above provide a
technological improvement to electronic exchange trading platforms
development technology systems. Appeal Br. 17. Accordingly, we
conclude, when the claim is considered as a whole, the recited judicial
exception is integrated into a practical application as determined under either
MPEP sections 2106.06(a) or 2106.05(e) cited above, such that the claim is
patent-eligible.”’
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693