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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 5/29/2026.
Claims 1-23 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 12, and 23 have been amended by Examiner' s amendment below.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 1 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claims 1, 12, and 23 recites a computer implemented method comprising: receiving, by a processor during a period of time of a set of periods of time, from one or more of a plurality of parties trading on the electronic trading system, electronic order messages for trading any of a plurality of instruments; storing, by the processor, the received electronic order message in a memory coupled with the processor together with other stored electronic order messages for trading the same instrument previously received during the period of time from the same party; and upon an end of the period of time, making, by the processor, each of the stored received electronic order messages received during the period of time, together with any stored received electronic order messages received during a prior period of time which have not yet been submitted to the electronic trading system, available for submission to the electronic trading system for matching thereby, regardless of whether or not all of the stored received electronic order messages received during a prior period of time have been submitted to the electronic trading system; and submitting, by the processor, each of the stored received electronic order messages made available therefore to the electronic trading system, by selecting in turn, for each instrument of the plurality of instruments for which there are stored received electronic order messages made available for submission and for each party from which those stored received electronic order messages were received, one of the stored received electronic order messages received from that party and transmitting the selected electronic order message to the electronic trading system, until all of the stored received electronic order messages that have been made available for submission have been transmitted to the electronic trading system. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve trading. The claims are also commercial interactions, such as business relations, as well as managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of processor, latency leveling processor, memory, computer, non-transitory computer readable medium, executable instructions, electronic trading system, electronic order messages, and a system. The additional elements of a processor, latency leveling processor, memory, computer, non-transitory computer readable medium, executable instructions, electronic trading system, electronic order messages, and a system, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (processor, latency leveling processor, memory, computer, non-transitory computer readable medium, executable instructions, electronic trading system, electronic order messages, and a system) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein each of the set of periods of time commences upon the end of another of the set of consecutive periods of time. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein the electronic order messages for trading a particular instrument of the plurality of instruments received from the same party are stored together in an order of receipt therefrom in the memory. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the memory are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the submitting further comprises selecting, for each of the plurality of instruments having stored received electronic order messages therefore made available for submission, in turn from each party, a stored received electronic order message for the instrument made available for submission, wherein when there are no stored received electronic order messages for that instrument received prior to commencement of the period of time waiting to be submitted to the electronic trading system, selecting, at random, a stored received electronic order message for the instrument made available for submission, and selecting in turn from each party thereafter. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the electronic order message and electronic trading system are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the stored received electronic order message for one party is selected for transmission randomly from among all of the stored received electronic order message for the one party. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of electronic order message are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein the stored received electronic order message for one party is selected for transmission based on order of receipt from among all of the stored received electronic order message for the one party. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of electronic order message are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein each party of the plurality of parties is coupled with the electronic trading system via an electronic communications network characterized by a latency different from a latency characterizing the electronic communications network which couples another party of the plurality of parties with the electronic trading system, the difference resulting in an electronic order message of one party and another electronic order message of another party, both responsive to the same event, being received by the electronic trading system at different times within the same duration of the first plurality of durations. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of electronic trading system, electronic communications network and electronic order message are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites wherein the memory comprises a plurality of queues, the storing further comprising selecting one of the plurality of queues into which to store the received electronic order message. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of memory and electronic order message are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the selecting comprises selecting an empty queue of the plurality of queues when the received electronic order messages is the first electronic order message for the first instrument received from a party of the plurality of parties during the duration. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of electronic order message and first electronic order message are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 recites wherein the electronic order messages received from the same party are further stored together in the same queue in the memory. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of electronic order message and memory are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 11 recites wherein the duration of each period of time of the set of periods of time is random. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein each of the set of periods of time commences upon the end of another of the set of consecutive periods of time. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein the electronic order messages for trading a particular instrument of the plurality of instruments received from the same party are stored together in an order of receipt therefrom in the memory. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of the memory are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 15 recites select, for each of the plurality of instruments having stored received electronic order messages therefore made available for submission, in turn from each party, a stored received electronic order message for the instrument made available for submission, wherein when there are no stored received electronic order messages for that instrument received prior to commencement of the period of time waiting to be submitted to the electronic trading system, selecting, at random, a stored received electronic order message for the instrument made available for submission, and selecting in turn from each party thereafter. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of the electronic order messages, and electronic trading system are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 16 recites wherein the stored received electronic order message for one party is selected for transmission randomly from among all of the stored received electronic order message for the one party. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of the electronic order message are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 17 recites wherein the stored received electronic order message for one party is selected for transmission based on order of receipt from among all of the stored received electronic order message for the one party. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of the electronic order message are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein each party of the plurality of parties is coupled with the electronic trading system via an electronic communications network characterized by a latency different from a latency characterizing the electronic communications network which couples another party of the plurality of parties with the electronic trading system, the difference resulting in an electronic order message of one party and another electronic order message of another party, both responsive to the same event, being received by the electronic trading system at different times within the same duration of the first plurality of durations. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of the electronic trading system, electronic order message, and electronic communications network are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 19 recites select one of the plurality of queues into which to store the received electronic order message. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of the electronic order message are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 20 recites select an empty queue of the plurality of queues when the received electronic order messages is the first electronic order message for the first instrument received from a party of the plurality of parties during the duration. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of the electronic order message and first electronic order message are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 21 recites wherein the electronic order messages received from the same party are further stored together in the same queue in the memory. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of the memory and electronic order message are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 22 recites wherein the duration of each period of time of the set of periods of time is random. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton US 20150127519, in view of de Lima US 10162689.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 23, Melton discloses a computer implemented method comprising (Fig. 1, Computer system 100 with processor 112, storage device 114, and latency floor application 114; Para. 24):
receiving, by a processor during a period of time of a set of periods of time, from one or more of a plurality of parties trading on the electronic trading system, electronic order messages for trading any of a plurality of instruments (Para. 34, “The ideal latency floor mechanism may operate on various types of market races (such as those described in Table 1) based on various configurable parameters (such as those described in Table 2). In operation, the ideal latency floor mechanism may detect the first order in a market race and create a “batch” for that specific market race. The ideal latency floor mechanism may start a timer that when expired or otherwise reaches a certain value, indicates an end of the batch”; Table 2 discloses floor value duration from Floor_Lower to Floor-Upper in milliseconds); Para. 26, “ market participants 142 who compete in the race (e.g., by choosing to make or take a price) and are able to respond within a value of a latency floor are added to a batch in which each market participant has an equal probability of winning the market race”);
storing, by the processor, the received electronic order message in a memory coupled with the processor together with other stored electronic order messages for trading the same instrument previously received during the period of time from the same party (Storage device 114; Para. 15, “the system may group messages received during the batching period by the market participant (or similar entity) that generated those messages. Within each group of orders, the system may retain the temporal ordering in which those messages in that group were received. For instance, all messages received from a first market participant during the batching period may be grouped together into a first set of messages from the first market participant in the temporal order in which they were received. Likewise, all messages received from a second market participant during the batching period may be grouped together into a second set of messages from the second market participant in the temporal order in which they were received, and so on”; Para. 60, “Line 1 is the Map of market participants 142 to their orders (messages) that were subject to that batch (race).”);
Melton fails to disclose and upon an end of the period of time, making, by the processor, each of the stored received electronic order messages received during the period of time, together with any stored received electronic order messages received during a prior period of time which have not yet been submitted to the electronic trading system, available for submission to the electronic trading system for matching thereby, regardless of whether or not all of the stored received electronic order messages received during a prior period of time have been submitted to the electronic trading system. However, de Lima discloses storing received ordered messages that have not yet been submitted for processing, with incoming order messages held in buffer rather than passed to a matching engine (“Once this limit/cap is reached, subsequently received messages may be buffered or otherwise queued and/or rejected, dropped or deleted, depending upon the implementation, until such time as processing of one or more of the accepted messages is completed”; the second logic 208 may be further executable by the processor 202 to cause the processor 202 store in the memory 204, or another buffer or queue 210, a received message for which processing is not commenced to be processed when it is determined that the number of previously received messages for which processing has not yet completed plus the stored received message complies with the limit of how many messages may be concurrently processed), where buffered prior messages and newly received messages are together made available for processing (“when one or more messages have completed processing, messages in the buffer are processed prior to subsequently received messages”) with a gated release on capacity becoming available (“removing the at least one stored received message from the memory 204 or buffer 210 and commencing processing thereof by the processor 202”; Claim 1, “whether the number of previously received messages for which processing has begun but not yet completed is at a limit of how many messages are allowed to be concurrently processed”), and newly received messages are made available and submitted without first draining all buffered messages (“newly received messages may be processed before buffered messages or the system may alternate between processing buffered messages and newly received messages as processing of previously accepted messages completes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Melton with discloses storing received ordered messages that have not yet been submitted for processing, with incoming order messages held in buffer rather than passed to a matching engine with a gated release based on capacity and newly received messages made available and submitted without first draining all buffered messages. Doing so prevents message loss and maintains order-message flow to the exchange matching system.
Melton also discloses submitting, by the processor, each of the stored received electronic order messages made available therefore to the electronic trading system, by selecting in turn, for each instrument of the plurality of instruments for which there are stored received electronic order messages made available for submission and for each party from which those stored received electronic order messages were received, one of the stored received electronic order messages received from that party and transmitting the selected electronic order message to the electronic trading system, until all of the stored received electronic order messages that have been made available for submission have been transmitted to the electronic trading system (Claim limitations require round-robin, per-instrument, per-party, one at a time draining; Melton, Para. 16, “In one such strategy, until there are no messages left in the batch, the shuffled list of participants is repeatedly iterated over removing a single message for each participant for processing against the CLOB before moving onto the next participant with messages remaining in the batch”; Para. 59, discloses the pseudo-code. Round-robin draining operation; Para. 65, “The for-loop beginning on Line 7 causes the round-robin draining operation to iterate over the list of participants, removing one order (or equivalently message) from each participant's list of orders at each iteration. As each order is removed it is processed against the CLOB per line 11.”; Para. 36, the queue of line 1 is continually replenished by orders from market participants on a given instrument; Para. 59-60, per-party one at a time selection, with M<participant, LinkedList<Orders>> mapping each participant to ordered list of messages, and Order o = os.removeFirst() removing the order from the list; Para. 66, “ If the batch contains orders a1, a2, and a3 from participant A, and order b1 from participant B, and orders c1 and c2 from participant C…If the shuffling of the map's keys (i.e., the participants) results in the ordered list [C,A,B] then the order in which the messages will be processed against the CLOB is as follows: [c1, a1, b1, c2, a2, a3]); For “until all of the stored received electronic order messages that have been made available for submission have been transmitted to the electronic trading system”, See Para. 66, “The termination condition for the do-while loop is for no orders to be remaining (i.e., for all orders to have been processed against the CLOB)”).
Regarding claim 3 and 14, modified Melton discloses wherein the electronic order messages for trading a particular instrument of the plurality of instruments received from the same party are stored together in an order of receipt therefrom in the memory (Melton, Para. 15, “Within each group of orders, the system may retain the temporal ordering in which those messages in that group were received. For instance, all messages received from a first market participant during the batching period may be grouped together into a first set of messages from the first market participant in the temporal order in which they were received.”; Para. 125, “ In an implementation, the temporal order in which the orders are received may be retained. In this case, batching engine 126 may batch the initial order for a financial instrument and all other orders for that same financial instrument that are received with a batching period after the first order was received in the temporal order the orders were received”).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, modified Melton discloses wherein the submitting further comprises selecting, for each of the plurality of instruments having stored received electronic order messages therefore made available for submission (Melton, Para. 10-11, Round Robin draining; Instrument batches are made available at the end of their respective periods; Para. 11, “Detecting the first message in a specific type of race…For a given instrument, a plurality of races may be “active” at any given time, each of which has its own set of messages, its own batch and its own timer”), in turn from each party, a stored received electronic order message for the instrument made available for submission (Para. 11, “using that shuffled list of participants as input to a predetermined “drain” strategy that, when the race's timer has reached its value, removes the messages from the batch for processing against the CLOB in a manner and sequence that is equitable to the participants given the race type”; Para. 16, “a small amount of the total quantity across all orders submitted by each participant may be processed against the CLOB in a round-robin fashion”; See also Para. 65, describing Line 7, removing one order from each participants list of orders), wherein when there are no stored received electronic order messages for that instrument received prior to commencement of the period of time waiting to be submitted to the electronic trading system, selecting, at random, a stored received electronic order message for the instrument made available for submission, and selecting in turn from each party thereafter (Para. 11, “(5) shuffling that list of participants so as to arrive at a random ordering, and (6) using that shuffled list of participants as input to a predetermined “drain” strategy that, when the race's timer has reached its value, removes the messages from the batch for processing against the CLOB in a manner and sequence that is equitable to the participants given the race type”; Round robin allows for selection of party in turn after each prior submission has been selected; Para. 33, “If a Maker_At_Once is false, then for maker races, one order will be removed from each participants order at a time, in a round robin fashion”; Para. 65, iterate over the list; Para. 93, “Lines 6-20 are structurally similar to the round-robin draining operation pseudo-code example in that the for-loop beginning on Line 8 causes the equitable quantity race draining operation to repeatedly iterate over the list of participants until each participant's list of orders is reduced to size zero.” ).
Regarding claim 6 and 17, modified Melton discloses wherein the stored received electronic order message for one party is selected for transmission based on order of receipt from among all of the stored received electronic order message for the one party (Melton discloses “batching with temporal ordering”; Para. 15, “In an implementation, the system may group messages received during the batching period by the market participant (or similar entity) that generated those messages. Within each group of orders, the system may retain the temporal ordering in which those messages in that group were received. For instance, all messages received from a first market participant during the batching period may be grouped together into a first set of messages from the first market participant in the temporal order in which they were received. Likewise, all messages received from a second market participant during the batching period may be grouped together into a second set of messages from the second market participant in the temporal order in which they were received, and so on.”).
Regarding claim 8 and 19, modified Melton discloses wherein the memory (Para. 143, storage device 114) comprises a plurality of queues, the storing further comprising selecting one of the plurality of queues into which to store the received electronic order message (Para. 36, pseudo code, with Line 1 being queue of incoming orders; Para. 51, Line 24, “On line 24 the list of orders that are participating in a race is obtained via a call to M.getOrPutEmptyListlfKeyAbsent([s,p]), with the ability to order by side (s) and price (p), which is a race type”).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, modified Melton discloses wherein the electronic order messages received from the same party are further stored together in the same queue in the memory (Melton, Para. 15, “all messages received from a first market participant during the batching period may be grouped together into a first set of messages from the first market participant in the temporal order in which they were received. Likewise, all messages received from a second market participant during the batching period may be grouped together into a second set of messages from the second market participant in the temporal order in which they were received, and so on”).
Regarding claim 11 and 22, modified Melton discloses wherein the duration of each period of time of the set of periods of time is random (Para. 123, “The batching period may be triggered based on a trigger event and may be randomly selected within a bound (e.g., 0.9 ms-1.1 ms).”; Para. 159, “X may also vary randomly within some bounds (e.g., 0.9 ms-1.1 ms) if it is desired to establish a “latency floor” having some variation. Regardless, once the X ms have tolled the mechanism next enters the “RANDOMIZATION” state.”).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton and de Lima, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, further in view of Sellberg US 8719146.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, modified Melton discloses sets of periods of time, but fails to disclose each of the set of periods of time commences upon the end of another of the set of consecutive periods of time. However, Sellberg discloses a series of intervals that may be implemented as a series of consecutive intervals (Col. 3, Lines 10-11; Embodiment 3, next interval starts when as soon as previous interval has ended).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Melton with the interval sets of Sellberg. Doing so allows the system to operate sequentially, creating order amongst trade orders and prevents a time-lag effect where orders do not have to wait to commence.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton and de Lima, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, further in view of Eddy US 20150006349.
Regarding claim 5 and 16, modified Melton discloses stored received electronic order messages for one party, but fails to disclose those being selected for transmission randomly from among all of the stored received electronic order message for the one party. However, Eddy discloses randomly sorting grouped electronic orders (Para. 11) to generate more order queues (Para. 10; See also Para. 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Melton with the random sorting of grouped orders. Doing so permits proper selection of traded orders, increasing efficiency with proper matches.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton and de Lima, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, further in view of Merold DK285318T3.
Regarding claim 9 and 20, Melton discloses messages received in queue, but fails to disclose wherein the selecting comprises selecting an empty queue of the plurality of queues when the received electronic order messages is the first electronic order message for the first instrument received from a party of the plurality of parties during the duration. However, Merold (DK285318T3) discloses a set of queues (Para. 11) with an assignment to an empty queue when necessary (Para. 17, assigning message to appropriate set of queues; Para. 24, assigning to an empty queue; Para. 11, “If the message is the first message assigned to the set of queues”) where each queue set is instrument-specific, with a message examined to determine its instrument (Para. 16-17) during a random duration between defined minimum and maximum durations for a set of queues (Para. 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Melton with the electronic message received in multiple queues with selection for managing the entry of order in the trading system from Merold. Doing so increases efficiency and speed of the trading system, and avoids bottlenecks slowing trading time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101; set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 7 and 18 recite “wherein each party of the plurality of parties is coupled with the electronic trading system via an electronic communications network characterized by a latency different from a latency characterizing the electronic communications network which couples another party of the plurality of parties with the electronic trading system, the difference resulting in an electronic order message of one party and another electronic order message of another party, both responsive to the same event, being received by the electronic trading system at different times within the same duration of the first plurality of durations,” and is not found in the prior art. However, the claims still do not overcome the 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are not an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve trading. The claims are also commercial interactions, such as business relations, as well as managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. Also, the claims are capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points. First, not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a certain "method of organizing human activity"), In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. The term "fundamental" is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"); In re Greenstein, 774 Fed. Appx. 661, 664, 2019 USPQ2d 212400 (Fed Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (claims to a new method of allocating returns to different investors in an investment fund was a fundamental economic concept). However, being old or well-known may indicate that the practice is fundamental. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 219-20, 110 USPQ2d 1981-82 (2014) (describing the concept of intermediated settlement, like the risk hedging in Bilski, to be a "‘fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce’" and also as "a building block of the modern economy") (citation omitted); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (claims to the concept of hedging are a "fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class.") (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1356 (2016) ("The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’").
An example of a case identifying a claim as reciting a fundamental economic practice is Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 609, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1009 (2010). The fundamental economic practice at issue was hedging or protecting against risk. The applicant in Bilski claimed "a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk," i.e., how to protect against risk. 561 U.S. at 599, 95 USPQ2d at 1005. The method allowed energy suppliers and consumers to minimize the risks resulting from fluctuations in market demand for energy. The Supreme Court determined that hedging is "fundamental economic practice" and therefore is an "unpatentable abstract idea." 561 U.S. at 611-12, 95 USPQ2d at 1010
Another example of a case identifying a claim as reciting a fundamental economic practice is Bancorp Services., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The fundamental economic practice at issue in Bancorp pertained to insurance. The patentee in Bancorp claimed methods and systems for managing a life insurance policy on behalf of a policy holder, which comprised steps including generating a life insurance policy including a stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of underlying securities, calculating surrender value protected investment credits for the life insurance policy; determining an investment value and a value of the underlying securities for the current day; and calculating a policy value and a policy unit value for the current day. 687 F.3d at 1270-71, 103 USPQ2d at 1427. The court described the claims as an "attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of [managing a stable value protected life insurance policy] and then instruct the use of well-known [calculations] to help establish some of the inputs into the equation." 687 F.3d at 1278, 103 USPQ2d at 1433 (alterations in original) (citing Bilski)
"Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction in the form of a legal obligation is found in Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 101 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed Cir. 2012). The patentee claimed a method of "aggregating real property into a real estate portfolio, dividing the interests in the portfolio into a number of deedshares, and subjecting those shares to a master agreement." 671 F.3d at 1322, 101 USPQ2d at 1788. The legal obligation at issue was the tax-free exchanges of real estate. The Federal Circuit concluded that the real estate investment tool designed to enable tax-free exchanges was an abstract concept. 671 F.3d at 1323, 101 USPQ2d at 1789
An example of a claim reciting business relations is found in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 123 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The business relation at issue in Credit Acceptance is the relationship between a customer and dealer when processing a credit application to purchase a vehicle. The patentee claimed a "system for maintaining a database of information about the items in a dealer’s inventory, obtaining financial information about a customer from a user, combining these two sources of information to create a financing package for each of the inventoried items, and presenting the financing packages to the user." 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "processing an application for financing a loan" and found "no meaningful distinction between this type of financial industry practice" and the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice or the hedging concept in Bilski. 859 F.3d at 1054, 123 USPQ2d at 1108
The sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. An example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)”, which “is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity.” 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640. An example of a claim reciting following rules or instructions is In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patentee claimed a method of playing a dice game including placing wagers on whether certain die faces will appear face up. 911 F.3d at 1160; 129 USPQ2d at 1011. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing games”, which the court characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. 911 F.3d at 1160-61; 129 USPQ2d at 1011.
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims are integrated into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The computer functions of a processor, memory and electronic trading system all perform computer functions at a high level of generality, such as receiving data, storing data selecting per rules, and transmitting data. There is no technological improvement as the time periods, carry-over mechanism, and per-party/per-instrument selection are part of the abstract idea. These steps are merely automating a business method on generic computers or in a technological environment (electronic trading). Further, the background of the spec suggests the invention is trying to address latency issues, but this is not specifically presented in the claims. The concept of batching orders for submission applies equally to technological latency as non-technological latency.
In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Similarly, in DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, the claims were found eligible as they reflected improvements to the functioning of a computer, i.e. a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant also argues that the currently presented claims are an inventive concept. Examiner disagrees. the claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims address latency issues, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant's argument that the rejection lacks Berkheimer evidence is not persuasive. Such evidence is only required to support a conclusion that an additional element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the rejection does not assert well-understood, routine, conventional activity and instead identifies the additional elements drawn to the database as adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). Because the evaluation in Step 2B is not a weighing test, it is not important how the elements are characterized or how many considerations apply from the list of considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. It is important to evaluate the significance of the additional elements relative to the invention, and to keep in mind the ultimate question of whether the additional elements encompass an inventive concept.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 regarding the 103 rejection, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. De Lima, as noted in the above rejection, meets the limitation of “upon an end of the period of time, making, by the processor, each of the stored received electronic order messages received during the period of time, together with any stored received electronic order messages received during a prior period of time which have not yet been submitted to the electronic trading system, available for submission to the electronic trading system for matching thereby, regardless of whether or not all of the stored received electronic order messages received during a prior period of time have been submitted to the electronic trading system.” Further, although not noted in the above rejection, Sellberg (US 8719146) discloses processing orders in a series of random time intervals regardless of whether or not all prior orders have been submitted (“some orders may be processed during another interval than the one during which it was received, e.g. the interval subsequent to the one during which it was received”… “That would ensure that an owner of a resident order has time to absorb and react to the information provided by incoming orders while still providing near immediate execution”…. Fig. 3, Col. 6-7, AMA detail steps with call periods re-initiating new orders, with outer boundary processing continuing without requiring full prior completion) and Eddy (US 20150006349) discloses orders accepted in a first time period, followed by random delay and randomized matching (“accepting electronic trading orders from auction participants' electronic devices in a first time period of an electronic auction, applying a random time delay in response to expiration of the first time period, executing code to randomly sort the electronic trading orders to generate one or more order queues”…” The auctions implemented by the engine 100 can occur in sequence and/or in parallel with each other. In some embodiments, the auction(s) can be completed on the order of seconds, minutes, hours, and so on. In one exemplary embodiment, the engine 100 can implement a sequence of temporally consecutive auctions during a trading period”…” The matching engine 130 programmatically matches orders with other orders by applying one or more matching priority rules to the electronic trading orders.”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights