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
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-16 are directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES”).
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of prioritizes executable instructions according to the source of the instructions and predetermined condition for delay.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving message (consisting of value fields and an executable instruction); storing message; setting the first value field to time of message receipt; sending message to an “inbound message queue” in a storage device with inbound message que and an intentional delay queue; “inbound message queue” store the message by adding to the end of the queue of message received; making 1st determination that either inbound message queue or the intentional delay queue contains at least one message; initiating 1st operating state based on the 1st determination, by continuously monitoring by one or more sensors the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue for a current message; setting the second value field to a sequence of time indicating a time the message was added to the end of the inbound message queue; continuously incrementing the sequence time; determining that (1) source of message is a predefined source for which all messages are to be delayed, and (2) the message (executable instruction) match predetermined condition for delay processing; sending the message from the inbound message queue to the “intentional delay queue” when the sequence time reaches a delay time based on continuous monitoring of the second value field; “intentional delay queue” stores messages by inserting messages according to the order it is eligible for processing; identifying a current executable instruction within a current message at a first position of one of the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue; sending current executable instruction to the intentional delay queue; making 2nd determination that either inbound message queue or the intentional delay queue are empty; and initiating 2nd operating state based on the 2nd determination, by ceasing the continuously monitoring the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue, – specifically, the claim recites “receive… a message comprising one or more value fields and an executable instruction; temporarily store… the message… upon receipt; set… a first value field of the one or more value fields to include a receipt time indicating a time the message was received; send… the message to an inbound message queue in a storage device comprising the inbound message queue and an intentional delay queue, the inbound message queue configured to store the message such that it is added to an end of the inbound message queue for processing according to a sequence in which it is received; make… a first determination that one or more of the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue contains at least one message; initiate… a first operating state based on the first determination, wherein during the first operating… continuously monitor the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue for a current message; set… a second value field of the one or more value fields to include a sequence time indicating a time the message was added to the end of the inbound message queue; continuously increment… the sequence time; determine… that one or more of a source of the message is a predefined source for which all messages are to be intentionally delayed and the executable instruction matches at least one predetermined condition for intentionally delayed processing; send… the message from the inbound message queue to an intentional delay queue for execution when the sequence time reaches a delay time based on continuous monitoring of the second value field, the intentional delay queue specifically configured to store the message such that the message is inserted into a position within the intentional delay queue for processing according to an order in which it is eligible for processing; identify… based on the continuously monitoring, a current executable instruction within a current message at a first position of one of the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue; and one of execute… the current executable instruction and send the current executable instruction to the intentional delay queue; make… a second determination that the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue are empty; and initiate… a second operating state based on the second determination, the second operating state comprising ceasing the continuously monitoring the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue”, recites a fundamental economic practice, directed to mitigating risk of executing instructions (trades) in improper sequence/priority.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice or commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The “a system”, “a network communication unit”, “a communication interface”, “a matching system”, “a processor”, “programmed instructions”, “a cache”, “a storage device”, “non-transitory memory”, “a matching system dispatcher”, “one or more sensors and detectors”, and “a matching system engine”, in claim 1, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: a computer such as a system, a matching system, a processor, a matching system dispatcher, and a matching system engine; a communication device such as a network communication unit and a communication interface; an electronic/electrical device such as a one or more sensors and detectors; a storage unit such as non-transitory memory, a cache, and a storage device; and software module and algorithm such as programmed instructions. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their independent claim 1 is and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claim 2 discloses the limitation of the current message comprises the message after the delay time, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 discloses the limitation of determine that the current executable instruction includes a delay indication associated with being previously intentionally delayed; and immediately execute the current executable instruction, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 discloses the limitation of determine that the current executable instruction does not comprise an order and does not include a delay indication associated with being previously intentionally delayed; and immediately execute the current executable instruction, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 discloses the limitation of determine that the current executable instruction comprises an order that would take liquidity immediately and does not include a delay indication associated with being previously intentionally delayed; and send the current executable instruction to the intentional delay queue, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 discloses the limitation of determine that the current executable instruction comprises an order that would not take liquidity immediately and does not include a delay indication associated with being previously intentionally delayed; and immediately execute the current executable instruction, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 discloses the limitation of determine that the current executable instruction comprises one or more of a cancel request and a cancel-replace request of an existing order and does not include a delay indication associated with being previously intentionally delayed, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 discloses the limitation of determine that the existing order is stored in the intentional delay queue; and send the current executable instruction to the intentional delay queue, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 discloses the limitation of determine that the existing order is not stored in the intentional delay queue; and immediately execute the current executable instruction, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 discloses the limitation of determine that the intentional delay queue is not empty; determine that a sequence time of a particular instruction within the intentional delay queue has not been reached and the inbound message queue is not empty; and set an instruction in the first position within the inbound message queue as the current executable instruction from among the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 discloses the limitation of determine that the intentional delay queue is not empty; determine that a sequence time of a particular instruction within the intentional delay queue has been reached or exceeded and the inbound message queue is empty; and set an instruction in the first position within the intentional delay queue as the current executable instruction from among the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 discloses the limitation of determine that the intentional delay queue is not empty; determine that a sequence time of a particular instruction within the intentional delay queue has been reached or exceeded and the inbound message queue is not empty; determine that a first message sequence time of the intentional delay queue is less than or equal to a second message sequence time of the inbound message queue; and set an instruction in the first position within the intentional delay queue as the current executable instruction from among the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 discloses the limitation of determine that the intentional delay queue is not empty; determine that a sequence time of a particular instruction within the intentional delay queue has been reached or exceeded and the inbound message queue is not empty; determine that a first message sequence time of the intentional delay queue is greater than a second message sequence time of the inbound message queue; and set an instruction in the first position within the inbound message queue as the current executable instruction from among the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 discloses the limitation of set an executable instruction receipt time of the executable instruction and an executable instruction sequence time of the executable instruction as being a time that the message is received; and send the executable instruction receipt time and the executable instruction sequence time together with the message to the inbound message queue, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 discloses the limitation of set a sequence time of the executable instruction equal to a value comprising a receipt time of the executable instruction delayed by the delay time, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 discloses the limitation of at least one predetermined condition comprises inclusion of an order that would immediately be matched against another order within the executable instruction, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-16 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 USC § 101… Here, when read as a whole, it is clear that the claims do not merely recite only the idea of a solution or outcome and that the claims do not invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Rather, the claims include technical features that improve how the computerized matching system operates. More specifically, the claims describe how the matching system engine includes specialized hardware that is configured to, based on computer readable instructions, switch between two operating states based on the presence/absence of messages in the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue explicitly to avoid wasting processing time and conserve computing resources… In response, Applicant has amended Claim 1 to explicitly clarify that the first operating state and the second operating state are indeed two different technical states and to explicitly recite the specialized hardware that operates in different manners depending on the technical state of the system,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The two (the 1st and 2nd operating states) are not 2 different operating states. Rather, the two “operating states” are part of the same process – where one process is for when there is a message and the other is for when there are no massages. This is just software preprogram to follow a business model/process – an abstract idea being carried out by a “generic computer”. As stated in the prior office action:
“The "two operating states" are the same process, i.e. they are not 2 different technical states. Rather, the two "operating states" are part of the same process - where one process is used when there is a message and the other is used when there are no massages. Similar to a software that is directed to do "A" if there is a data input/message, else do "B". It's a single process”.
In comparison to the prior version, the added elements (see underlined) and deleted elements (if any, struck out with a line) are essentially: “initiate, by the matching system engine, a first operating state based on the first determination, wherein during the first operating state one or more sensors and detectors are configured to continuously monitor the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue for a current message”.
These changes are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections because: for 101 analysis purpose, this is just stating that the monitoring of inbound message are done by “one or more sensors and detectors”. Note that the technical elements “sensors” and “detectors”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Usually, electronic messages received are processed (in a sense, they are recognized/monitored). There is insufficient detail in the claim language to establish “the first operating state and the second operating state are indeed two different technical states and to explicitly recite the specialized hardware that operates in different manners depending on the technical state of the system.”
In response to applicant's argument that:
“As disclosed in the Specification, "[a]t operation 115, the Matching System 150 is in State A In this state, both the Inbound Message Queue 165 and the LEAD Queue 170 are empty. Since any Message 157 must arrive at the Inbound Message Queue 165 before it can be moved to the LEAD Queue 170, there is no reason to continuously test the LEAD Queue 170 for messages." Specification, [0065]. This is not merely "software that is directed to do 'A' if there is a data input/ message, else do 'B"' as alleged by the Examiner. Office Action, p. 16. "FIG. 5 is a block diagram of an implementation of an internal configuration of a computing device 200, including an infrastructure control server of a computing system," such as the system presently claimed. Specification, [0 11 0]. "Computing devices 200 may contain any number of sensors and detectors that monitor the computing device 200 itself or the environment around the computing device 200, or it may contain a location identification unit 260, such as a GPS or other type of location device." Id at [0116],”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Assuming that the initial state (or one of the states) is “the Matching System 150 is in State A In this state, both the Inbound Message Queue 165 and the LEAD Queue 170 are empty.” That state is determined by the business process that “continuously test the LEAD Queue 170 for messages” is unnecessary (since the queues are empty). What is the technical innovation? The business process could have decided to “continuously test the LEAD Queue 170 for messages” even if the queues are empty.
Again, the technical elements “sensors” and “detectors”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For example, how does the GPS monitor “operates in different manners depending on the technical state of the system” as the applicant has argued? How does the first operating state and the second operating state effects how the GPS operates?
In response to applicant's argument that:
“This implementation is specifically designed so the matching system "avoids wasting processing time to continuously examine whether the Inbound Message Queue 165 has a new Dispatched Message 158 by entering a wait state." Id. [0065]. In other words, the claimed matching system is specifically configured to only use computing resources when necessary and then preserve those computing resources (thereby freeing them up for other uses and/or reducing energy consumption) when they are not needed. Under any metric, the conservation of computing resources and avoidance of wasting processing time is an improvement to the functioning of a computer,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again the decision to monitor message when there are message in the queue is a business decision. The improvement – if any – is due to the business procedure/idea being implemented. It is not due to any technological improvement.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The Claims Include Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More than any Alleged Abstract Idea… Claim 1 includes both specialized components (i.e., the one or more sensors and detectors) and a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that, even if can be considered individually generic, amount to an inventive concept (when considered as a whole). The collection of claimed elements yields actual improvements in (among others) systems in the art. More specifically, the ability of the claimed matching system engine to switch between two operating states (i.e., continuously monitoring and a wait state) based on the presence/absence of messages in the inbound message queue and the intentional delay queue explicitly avoids wasting processing time and conserves computing resources,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the technical elements “sensors” and “detectors”, are recited at a high level of generality. They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the “one or more sensors and detectors” is very vague. What kind of sensors or detectors? What are they sensing or detecting? Is it part of computer component (e.g. I/O and processor) that when data is inputted, the computer started operating as programed?
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Any attempted rebuttal by the Office of said inventive concept would necessarily require factual evidence under Step 2B and the Berkheimer standard,”
the examiner respectfully notes that the office action did not raise the issue of whether anything is “well-understood, routine or conventional”. Rather, the examiner has determined that the claims’ technical elements amount to nothing more than “generic computers”, used in such a way that it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully refers the applicant to the discussion above on the abstract idea determination and the technical specific elements.
Conclusion
Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK H GAW whose telephone number is (571)270-0268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am -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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 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.
/MARK H GAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights