DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This is the Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed on August 11, 2026, for Application No. 19/210,506 filed on May 16, 2025, title: “Distributed Spreading Tools and Methods”.
Status of the Claims
Claims 2-21 were pending. By the 08/11/2026 Amendment, claims 2, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 15, 17, and 20 have been amended, claims 3-4, 13-14, and 18-19 have been cancelled, and new claims 22-26 have been added. Claim 1 was previously cancelled. Accordingly, claims 2, 5-12, 15-17, and 20-26 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Priority
This Application is a CON of US Patent Application No. 18/514,160 filed on 11/20/2023 (Patented No. 12,327,283) which is a CON of US Patent Application No. 17/366,921 filed on 07/02/2021 (Patented No. 11,869,080) which is a CON of US Patent Application No. 16/359,396 filed on 03/20/2019 (Patented No. 11,094,012) which is a CON of US Patent Application No. 13/675,592 filed on 11/13/2012 (Patented. No. 10,282,782).
For the purpose of examination, the 11/13/2012 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement (IDS) listing all relevant reference(s) is not enclosed to this Application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 5-12, 15-17, and 20-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 12,327,283, claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 11,869,080, claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 11,094,012, and claims 1-16 of US Patent No. 10,282,782. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Application are generic to all that is recited in the claims of the Patents. That is, the claims of the Patents fall entirely within the scope of the claims of the Application or, in other words, the claims of the Application are anticipated by the claims of the Patents. The examined claims are broader and would be anticipated by the reference claims. The examined claims recite substantially the same limitations as the reference claims in the Patents with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Application and the Patents are directed to the same invention (distributed spreading tools and methods), have the same inventors, and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
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 2, 5-12, 15-17, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 2, 5-12, 15-17, and 20-26 recite a method including a series of steps, claims 12-16 recite a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions, and claims 17-21 recite a system including processors and memories. Therefore, the claims are directed to a process, manufacture, and machine which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, and Mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1, A method including:
receiving, by a computing device, a trading strategy order message associated with a trading strategy definition, wherein the trading strategy definition includes a first quoting leg associated with a first tradeable object and a second quoting leg associated with a second tradeable object, wherein the first tradeable object is at a first electronic exchange, wherein the second tradeable object at a second electronic exchange, wherein the first electronic exchange is different from the second electronic exchange;
generating, by the computing device, a first child order message and a second child order message based on the trading strategy order message, wherein the first child order message is associated with the first quoting leg, wherein the second child order message is associated with the second quoting leg;
selecting, by the computing device, a first server device based on a first performance parameter;
selecting, by the computing device, a second server device based on a second performance parameter;
providing, by the computing device, a hedge management rule to the second server device; and
sending, by the computing device, the first child order message to the first server device and the second child order message to the second server device, wherein the first server device is configured to work a first quoting order based on the first child order message, wherein the second server device is configured to work a second quoting order based on the second child order message, wherein the first server device is configured to send a message for a hedge order to the second electronic exchange in response to receiving a fill confirmation for the first quoting order, wherein the second server device is configured to, in response to receiving a confirmation message from the second electronic exchange regarding the hedge order, work the hedge order at the second electronic exchange based on the hedge management rule.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., a computing device comprising processors and memories, first server device, second server device, first electronic exchange, and second electronic exchange). More specifically, the claim recites fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions including a method of managing trade orders by selecting one of the two network trade servers to be a control server and refraining the non-selected network trade server.
The claim recites three essential steps such as “receiving a trading strategy order message associated with a trading definition including a first quoting leg and a second quoting leg …”, “generating a first/second child order messages to associate with the first/second quoting legs …”, “selecting … a first server device based on a first performance parameter”, “selecting … a second server device based on a second performance parameter”, “providing … a hedge management rule to the second server device”, and “sending the first/second child order messages to first/second server devices …” for managing trade orders by selecting one of the two network trade servers to be a control server and refraining the non-selected network trade server. The claim limitations correspond to a method of organizing human activity, specifically to a fundamental economic practice for hedging - managing trade orders (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and a commercial interaction – spread trading between traders and items (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial interaction, then they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements such as “wherein the first tradeable object is at a first electronic exchange, wherein the second tradeable object at a second electronic exchange, wherein the first electronic exchange is different from the second electronic exchange”, “in response to receiving a confirmation message from the second electronic exchange regarding the hedge order, work the hedge order at the second electronic exchange based on the hedge management rule”, “wherein the trading strategy definition includes …”, “wherein the first child order messages is …”, and “wherein the first server device …” further describe the claim steps/functions and are additional details for the existing functional steps of the claim, but do not change the analysis of the claim and do not take the claim out of the abstract idea.
The additional computer elements, such as “selecting … a first server device based on a first performance parameter”, “selecting … a second server device based on a second performance parameter”, and “providing… a hedge management rule to the second server device”, add more steps for selecting the server devices based on performance parameters and for providing the hedge management rule which further narrow the details of the abstract idea but do not change the analysis because a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites a computer program and claim 17 recites a computer system with the comparable elements and limitations. Therefore, these claims also are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2 Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims (2, 12, and 17) recite the additional elements of the computing device comprising processors and memories, first server device, second server device, first electronic exchange, and second electronic exchange. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving data, generating data, and sending data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and this is supported in Applicant’s Specification in paragraphs 31, 64, and 72-76 (also see paragraphs 31, 39-76 and Figures 1-3 in Publication No. 2025/0278789).
[0031] Although the description discloses embodiments including, among other components, software executed on hardware, it should be noted that the embodiments are merely illustrative and should not be considered as limiting. For example, it is contemplated that any or all of these hardware and software components may be embodied exclusively in hardware, exclusively in software, exclusively in firmware, or in any combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware. Accordingly, certain embodiments may be implemented in other ways.
[0064] The trading device 210a may communicate with the gateway 220a using one or more communication networks. As used herein, a communication network is any network, including the Internet, which facilitates or enables communication between, for example, the trading device 210a, the gateway 220a and the exchange 220a. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, the trading device 210a may communicate with the gateway 220a across a multicast communication network 202a. The data on the network 202a may be logically separated by subject (for example, prices, orders, or fills). As a result, the server 212a and trading terminal 214a can subscribe to and receive data (for example, data relating to prices, orders, or fills) depending on their individual needs.
[0072] The computing device 300 includes a communication network 310, a processor 312, a memory 314, an interface 316, an input device 318, and an output device 320. The computing device 300 may include additional, different, or fewer components. For example, multiple communication networks, multiple processors, multiple memory, multiple interfaces, multiple input devices, multiple output devices, or any combination thereof, may be provided. As another example, the computing device 300 may not include an input device 318 or output device 320.
[0073] As shown in FIG. 3, the computing device 300 may include a processor 312 coupled to a communication network 310. The communication network 310 may include a communication bus, channel, network, circuit, switch, fabric, or other mechanism for communicating data between components in the computing device 300. The communication network 310 may be communicatively coupled with and transfer data between any of the components of the computing device 300.
[0074] The processor 312 may be any suitable processor, processing unit, or microprocessor. The processor 312 may include one or more general processors, digital signal processors, application specific integrated circuits, field programmable gate arrays, analog circuits, digital circuits, programmed processors, and/or combinations thereof, for example. The processor 312 may be a single device or a combination of devices, such as one or more devices associated with a network or distributed processing. Any processing strategy may be used, such as multi-processing, multi-tasking, parallel processing, and/or remote processing. Processing may be local or remote and may be moved from one processor to another processor. In certain embodiments, the computing device 300 is a multi-processor system and, thus, may include one or more additional processors which are communicatively coupled to the communication network 310.
[0076] The memory 314 may be one or more tangible media, such as computer readable storage media, for example. Computer readable storage media may include various types of volatile and non-volatile storage media, including, for example, random access memory, read-only memory, programmable read-only memory, electrically programmable read-only memory, electrically erasable read-only memory, flash memory, any combination thereof, or any other tangible data storage device. As used herein, the term non-transitory or tangible computer readable medium is expressly defined to include any type of computer readable medium and to exclude propagating signals. The memory 314 may include any desired type of mass storage device including hard disk drives, optical media, magnetic tape or disk, etc.
The claims do not include additional element(s) that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The newly added additional computer elements (i.e., “selecting … a first server device based on a first performance parameter”, “selecting … a second server device based on a second performance parameter”, and “providing… a hedge management rule to the second server device”) are broad and do not offer technical/technology improvement - simply adding more computer elements does not make the claim better or less abstract. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims do not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2B analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As noted in above, the independent claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of using a computer system to receive data, generate data, and send data to manage trade orders by selecting one of the two network trade servers to be a control server and refraining the non-selected network trade server. All these generic computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry similar to those referenced by MPEP 2106.05(d) II. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on the generic computer system or merely use generic computer systems as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g., “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept or significantly more. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 5-11, 15-16, and 20-26 depend on their independent claims 2, 12, 17 respectively and thus include all the limitations and features of their independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims also recite the abstract idea as discussed in the independent claims.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 recite additional elements “wherein at least one of the first performance parameter and the second performance parameter is based on a latency associated with the first server device and the second server device, respectively.” (Additional instructions for displaying status of data, receiving a selection of one of the cards, and providing an update to the second view. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 6, 16, and 21 recite additional elements “wherein the latency associated with the first server device is based on a first latency between the first server device and the first electronic exchange, wherein the latency associated with the second server device is based on a second latency between the second server device and the second electronic exchange.” (Additional instructions for displaying status of data, receiving a selection of one of the cards, and providing an update to the second view. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 7, 23, and 25 recite additional elements “wherein at least one of the first performance parameter and the second performance parameter is based on a location associated with the first server device and the second server device, respectively.” (Additional instructions for displaying status of data, receiving a selection of one of the cards, and providing an update to the second view. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 8 recites additional elements “wherein at least one of the first performance parameter and the second performance parameter is based on a capacity associated with the first server device and the second server device, respectively.” (Additional instructions for displaying status of data, receiving a selection of one of the cards, and providing an update to the second view. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 9 recites additional elements “further including: generating, by the computing device, a first child trading strategy definition and a second child trading strategy definition, wherein the first quoting order is worked based on the first child trading strategy definition, wherein the second quoting order is worked based on the second child trading strategy definition.” (Additional instructions for displaying status of data, receiving a selection of one of the cards, and providing an update to the second view. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 10 recites additional elements “wherein the first child trading strategy definition includes fewer quoting legs than the trading strategy definition, wherein the second child trading strategy definition includes fewer quoting legs than the trading strategy definition.” (Additional instructions for displaying status of data, receiving a selection of one of the cards, and providing an update to the second view. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 11 recites additional elements “wherein the trading strategy definition includes a third quoting leg associated with a third tradeable object, wherein the first tradeable object and the third tradeable object are at a first electronic exchange, wherein the second tradeable object is at a second electronic exchange, wherein the first electronic exchange is different from the second electronic exchange, wherein the first child order message is associated with the third quoting leg, wherein the first server device is configured to work a third quoting order based on the first child order message.” (Additional instructions for displaying status of data, receiving a selection of one of the cards, and providing an update to the second view. This claim individually or in combination with others does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 22, 24, and 26 recite additional elements “wherein the second server device is configured to, in response to the first server device sending the message for the hedge order, cancel the second quoting order.” (Additional instructions for the second server device to cancel the second quoting order. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. 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 in combination with others. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 2, 12, and 17 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method for managing trade orders by selecting one of the two network trade servers to be a control server and refraining the non-selected network trade server. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, computer network, or system memory, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
It is noted that Applicant’s claimed invention is basically “a business solution” to “a business problem” and this is supported in paragraph 3 of the Publication:
[0003] In addition to trading single items, a user may trade more than one item according to a trading strategy. One common trading strategy is a spread and trading according to a trading strategy may also be referred to as spread trading. Spread trading may attempt to capitalize on changes or movements in the relationships between the items in the trading strategy, for example.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
In view of Applicant’s comments filed on the 08/11/2026 Remarks, the rejection is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Per pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant cites MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), paragraph 164 of the Specification, and argues that the Specification identifies technical problems and addressed in the claimed embodiments.
Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the analysis above, the present amended claims lack sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention. The present amended claims do not identify an improvement other indicating selecting more server devices. The present amended claims do not reflect the improvement as described in the Specification (i.e., selecting the servers to work the various legs may provide certain advantages (e.g., time savings, load balancing, etc.). It should be noted that time savings and load balancing is “a business solution”. Therefore, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 is MAINTAINED.
Conclusion
Claims 2, 5-12, 15-17, and 20-26 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights