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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 4 has reference characters 1010, 1012, and 1040 which are not in the specification, refer to paragraphs [00206]-[00213]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
the specification lacks a description for I/O Interface 1010, Network Interface 1012, and API 1040.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation.
Claims 4, 14, and 18 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation as follows.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the interface is configured to” in claim 4;
“automated market maker is configured to” in claim 14; and
“automated market maker is configured to” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 claim at numerous location “routed market” and claims in the last two lines of claim 1, the last line of claim 19, and the last line of claim 20 “the routed virtual market” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim and is ambiguous in view of previously claimed “routed market” set forth in great detail in each of these claims. Additionally Applicant’s written description lists at various locations “routed markets”, “routed virtual market”, and “virtual markets” which are conveyed in the specification as different things.
The dependent claims inherit and do not correct this indefinite issue.
Additionally claim 5 claims “the one or more routed markets”.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LaPierre, US Patent No. 7,330,834, describes online trading of assets via transactionally linked virtual markets, refer to the Abstract and describe publishing real-time information to users, refer to column 4 lines 33-38.
Gilboy, US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0150407, describes a virtual market order book refer to paragraph [0051] and claims 10 and 20.
Szabo, US Patent No. 6,868,525, describes “multiresolution representation and analysis (e.g., zoomable viewing)”, refer to column 20 lines 16-27 and FIG. 3 described at column 45 lines 24-44.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The application and the claims are directed to several practical applications one of which is the practical application of having the automated market maker and associated automated market maker instructions adjusting liquidity of the hybrid order book internally which results in reducing latency and providing real-time data where the automated market maker instructions comprise code logic code and another practical application is the selective visual display of a depth chart as a representation for the hybrid order book which results in reducing latency and providing real-time data with regards to visual display. These two claimed practical applications individually or in combination in each of the independent claims render claims that are patent eligible.
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of each of independent claims 1,
“using the automated market maker instructions to manage buy and sell orders in the hybrid order book while avoiding latency issues and providing real-time data on the buy and sell orders, market depth, and price levels for assets, wherein the hybrid order book immediately reprices outstanding orders after a trade and before another trade occurs;” (emphasis added) and
“provide a selective visual display of a depth chart as a representation for the hybrid order book, wherein a visualization of the depth chart reflects market depth of the hybrid order book in real-time with visual elements corresponding to order book depth, wherein the interface displays visual elements for the routed virtual market.” (emphasis added).
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of each of independent claims 19 and 20:
“using the automated market maker instructions to manage buy and sell orders in the hybrid order book while avoiding latency issues and providing real-time data on the buy and sell orders, market depth, and price levels for assets, wherein the hybrid order book immediately reprices outstanding orders after a trade and before another trade occurs;” (emphasis added) and
“generating a selective visual display of a depth chart as a representation for the hybrid order book, wherein a visualization of the depth chart reflects market depth of the hybrid order book in real-time with visual elements corresponding to order book depth, wherein the interface displays visual elements for the routed virtual market.” (emphasis added).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A BRIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30am-3:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
JEFFERY A. BRIER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/JEFFERY A BRIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights