The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 5/29/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites "processing of the data transaction request message comprises generated an identifier associated therewith" however, it should be - - processing of the data transaction request message comprises generating an identifier associated therewith - -.
Claim 16 recites "the processing of the data transaction request message comprises generated an identifier associated therewith" however it should be - - the processing of the data transaction request message comprises generating an identifier associated therewith - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations recite “wherein each data transaction request further includes data indicative of an improved value, relative to the primary value”.
The term “improved” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the term has been interpreted as a value that is different than the primary value.
Claim 14 recites features similar in scope to those of claim 3. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, above.
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 1-2, 4-13, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 in view of Simonoff (US 20130151391 A1).
Regarding claim 1, US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 discloses a system (Claim 1, "A system comprising:") comprising:
a hardware buffer element coupled, via an electronic communications network, between a transaction processor and a client computer which selectively stores an electronic data transaction request message for a period of time prior to forwarding the data transaction request to the transaction processor (Claim 1, "a delay buffer coupled with an electronic communications network and a transaction processor and disposed along a data path from a client computer to the transaction processor, the delay buffer operative to temporarily store one or more electronic data transaction request messages; and "); and
a processor coupled with the hardware buffer element and configured to: receive, arbitrarily over a period of time from the client computer via the electronic communications network, a plurality of electronic data transaction request messages (Claim 1, "a delay processor coupled with the delay buffer, the delay processor configured to cause the system to: receive, arbitrarily over a period of time, a plurality of electronic data transaction request messages,"),
each electronic data transaction request message including data indicative of a request to perform a type of transaction on a data object, a quantity, a primary value, and, optionally, a set quarantine flag (Claim 1, "each electronic data transaction request message including a request to perform a type of transaction on a data object, a quantity, a quarantine flag set or unset by the client computer, and a primary value; "),
wherein inclusion of a set quarantine flag indicates that the electronic data transaction request message is able to be delayed and an absence of the set quarantine flag indicates that the electronic data transaction request message is not to be delayed; for each electronic data transaction request message of the plurality of the received electronic data transaction request messages: determine whether the electronic data transaction request message includes a set quarantine flag (Claim 1, "for each electronic data transaction request message of the plurality of the electronic data transaction request messages received by the system: determine whether the electronic data transaction request message includes the set quarantine flag indicating that the received electronic data transaction request message is to be delayed or the unset quarantine flag indicating that the received electronic data transaction request message is not to be delayed; ");
upon determination that the electronic data transaction request message does not include a set quarantine flag, cause the hardware buffer element to forward the received electronic data transaction request message to the transaction processor without additional delay (Claim 1, "upon determination that the electronic data transaction request message includes the unset quarantine flag, forward the received electronic data transaction request message to a transaction processor; and "); and
upon determination that the electronic data transaction request message includes a set quarantine flag: determine an amount of a delay time, within a range having a minimum delay time and a maximum delay time, as a function of a current rate of receipt of the plurality of the electronic data transaction request messages when the electronic data transaction request message including the set quarantine flag was received (Claim 1, "upon determination that the electronic data transaction request message includes the set quarantine flag: determine an amount of a delay time, within a range having a minimum delay time and a maximum delay time, as a function of a current rate of receipt of the plurality of the electronic data transaction request messages when the electronic data transaction request message including the set quarantine flag was received; and "); and
delay the received electronic data transaction request message in the hardware buffer element for a period of time equal to at least the determined minimum delay time prior to allowing the data transaction request to proceed to the transaction processor so as to distribute a flow of electronic data transaction request messages to the transaction processor and reduce a magnitude of the electronic data transaction request messages received at any one time (Claim 1, "re-route the electronic data transaction request message to the delay buffer to be stored in association with the determined amount of the delay time for subsequent routing to the transaction processor only after the at least the minimum delay time has elapsed to distribute a flow of electronic data transaction request messages to the transaction processor to reduce a magnitude of the electronic data transaction request messages received at any one time.").
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 does not disclose that the request message is communicated thereto via the electronic communications network from the client computer.
Simonoff discloses that the request message is communicated thereto via the electronic communications network from the client computer (¶[0078], "a transaction execution module to execute (fulfill) financial transactions received from the third party servers 108 and/or 110" - see Fig. 1 and ¶[0038], "a process of processing messages and conditionally delaying financial transactions based on the processing of the messages, in accordance with some embodiments"; ¶[0109], "After a first predetermined time interval from the time that the first financial transaction was received has elapsed, transaction processing module 204 removes (904) the first financial transaction from the quarantine transaction list and processes (906) the first financial transaction"; ¶[0058], "transmits the financial transactions 270 and the ordering of the financial transactions 270 to financial transaction servers 104 for execution in accordance with the ordering. The ordering may be an explicit ordering (e.g., the financial transactions 270 and an order in which the financial transactions 270 are to be executed is transmitted to financial transaction servers 104)" ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 and Simonoff to arrive at a system in which the request message is communicated thereto via the electronic communications network from the client computer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would prevent "inequity between entities that have the means to increase the likelihood that their financial transactions will be the first financial transaction to be executed by the financial transaction server" (Simonoff, suggested by ¶[0006]).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 and Simonoff disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the hardware buffer element comprises one of a memory for storing electronic data transaction requests during the period of time, an electronic data transaction request router selectively coupled with the transaction processor via a plurality of parallel data paths each characterized by a different latency by which a data transaction request routed there over will be subject to, or network interface configured to reject the data transaction request with a directive to the client computer to resend after the period of time expires (US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2, claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 and Simonoff disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the processor, upon receipt of a data transaction request message, processes the data transaction request message to produce a result thereof, the result being communicated to the transaction processor along with the data transaction request message when the data transaction message is forwarded thereto (Simonoff, ¶[0038], "a process of processing messages and conditionally delaying financial transactions based on the processing of the messages, in accordance with some embodiments"; ¶[0109], "After a first predetermined time interval from the time that the first financial transaction was received has elapsed, transaction processing module 204 removes (904) the first financial transaction from the quarantine transaction list and processes (906) the first financial transaction"; ¶[0057], "After obtaining the financial transactions 270 from the latency fairness list 210, transaction processing module 204 determines an ordering of the financial transactions based on at least one ordering rule"; ¶[0058], "transaction processing module 204 transmits the financial transactions 270 and the ordering of the financial transactions 270 to financial transaction servers 104 for execution in accordance with the ordering").
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 and Simonoff disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 4, above, wherein the processing of the data transaction request message comprises generated an identifier associated therewith (Simonoff, ¶[0058], "transmits the financial transactions 270 and the ordering of the financial transactions 270 to financial transaction servers 104 for execution in accordance with the ordering. The ordering may be an explicit ordering (e.g., the financial transactions 270 and an order in which the financial transactions 270 are to be executed is transmitted to financial transaction servers 104)" - identifiers are implied in order to indicate how to order the transactions).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 and Simonoff disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the system to: periodically evaluate each of the stored delayed electronic data transaction request messages to determine whether any of the stored delayed electronic data transaction request messages can be forwarded to the transaction processor by determining whether the determined minimum delay time associated with any of the stored delayed electronic data transaction request messages has expired; upon determination that the determined minimum delay time of at least one of the stored delayed electronic data transaction request messages has expired, forward the at least one of the stored delayed electronic data transaction request messages to the transaction processor based on network utilization for which the associated determined delay time has expired; and upon determination that the maximum delay time of at least one of the stored delayed electronic data transaction request messages has expired, forward the at least one of the stored delayed electronic data transaction request messages for which the maximum delay time has expired to the transaction processor regardless of network utilization (US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2, Claim 2).
Regarding claim 7, Claim 1 of the combined teachings of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 and Simonoff disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the system to, upon determination that the electronic data transaction request message includes the set quarantine flag, delay processing thereof to a later time when the rate of receipt of the plurality of the electronic data transaction request messages is expected to be lower, set a random amount of time as the delay time, set a fixed amount of time as the delay time, or set a varying amount of time as the delay time (US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2, Claim 6 or Claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, Claim 1 of the combined teachings of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 and Simonoff disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the determined amount of the delay time increases when the current rate of receipt of the plurality of the electronic data transaction request messages increases and wherein the determined amount of the delay time decreases when the current rate of receipt of the plurality of the electronic data transaction request message decreases (US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2, Claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 and Simonoff disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the delay processor is further configured to set the delay time further based on transaction processor latency and/or network utilization (US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2, Claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 and Simonoff disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the transaction processor is coupled to an order book data structure and the transaction processor is configured to: for each electronic data transaction request message received by the transaction processor: determine whether the received electronic data transaction request message matches a previously received but unsatisfied electronic data transaction request message stored in the order book data structure; upon determination that the received electronic data transaction request message matches a previously received but unsatisfied electronic data transaction request message, reduce any portion of the previously received but unsatisfied electronic data transaction request message satisfied by the received electronic data transaction request message; and store in the order book data structure any unsatisfied portion of the received electronic data transaction request message for matching with a subsequently received electronic data transaction request message (US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2, Claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings of US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2 and Simonoff disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the transaction processor is a hardware matching processor of an exchange computing system, and wherein the data object represents an electronic order book for a financial instrument traded in the exchange computing system (US Patent No. 12,341,698 B2, Claim 11).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 17-20, the limitations are similar in scope to those of claims 1-2 and 4-8. Therefore, claims 12-13 and 17-20 are rejected for reasons similar as those set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-8, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM EST.
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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights