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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/8/25 has been entered.
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 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, the first operating state comprising continuously monitoring 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”, 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; 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 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“35 USC § 101… the claims as a whole are not directed to any alleged abstract idea,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has determined that the claims are directed to prioritizing executable instructions according to the source of the instructions and predetermined condition for delaying the execution. The examiner respectfully refers the applicant to the discussion above on the abstract idea determination and the technical specific elements in the claims that the examiner has determined to be “generic computer” used in to perform the abstract idea and to not have been integrated into a practical application.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“The 2024 Update has only reinforced the Examiner's obligation to "analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field"… 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,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no technological improvement of any kind. The claimed invention is not improving the networking technology, or computer processing technology, or data storage technology, or network communication technology. The Alice Court’s holding is clear that abstract ideas that lack genuine innovation beyond the use of generic computers are not patentable.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“the claims describe how the matching system engine is configured to 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,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. 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.
As stated in the prior office action:
“Having two separate message queues to make things more efficient is an abstract idea. Similarly, having specific processing rule for certain data is a business idea/procedure – i.e., an abstract idea”.
and
“The improvement – if any – is due to the business procedure/idea being implemented. These procedures involve sending and receiving messages, storing messages in queues, determining which message to be delayed (according to some business criteria), etc. There is no technological improvement”.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Here, the specification explicitly recites the improvement (i.e., "[t]his implementation avoids wasting processing time to continuously examine whether the Inbound Message Queue 165 has a new Dispatched Message 158 by entering a wait state",”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the improvement – if any – is due to the business procedure/idea being implemented (i.e. to monitor if there is a message). It is not due to any technological improvement.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Significantly More… Claim 1 includes both specialized components 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. For the purpose of being responsive, the examiner will repeat – at the risk of being unnecessarily repetitive – (1) there is no technological improvement of any kind. The claimed invention is not improving the networking technology, or computer processing technology, or data storage technology, or network communication technology; and (2) 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 (to monitor) is used when there is a message and the other (not to monitor) 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”. The improvement – if any – is due to the business procedure/idea being implemented (i.e. to monitor if there is a message). It is not due to any technological improvement.
As stated in the prior office action:
“The examiner does not see any “specialized components and a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” in the claim language. There are just “generic computer” and its components (recited at a high level).”.
In response to applicant's argument that:
“Berkheimer… "well understood, routine, and conventional,"… Absent such evidence, the assertion may not support a finding of ineligibility,”
the examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) states that there are “a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept.” It recites limitations that “the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more"”, these include:
1. “adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (emphasis examiner’s);”
2. “Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”;
3. “Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception”
“or (emphasis examiner’s);”
4. “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”
Note that each item in the list, by itself, can be determinative in the "significantly more" analysis. See the use of the “or” conjunction. Furthermore, MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) also states that “the list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting” (emphasis examiner’s).
Again, 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
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