DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The 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.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over parent claims 1, 10 and 19 of Studnitzer et al., US 11,301,935 “Studnitzer.”
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected independent claims achieve a non-distinct outcome using the same computing elements and data structures.
Rejected claim 9
Parent claim 10
A method including:
A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a processor via a communications network communicatively coupled therewith, a market data message, characterized by a message type and including one or more parameters and which causes a change to a prior order within an electronic trading system, from a trader via the communications network, the change to the prior order including a change in price level for the prior order, the prior order having an order size;
receiving, by a trading engine via a communications network communicatively coupled therewith, a market data message, characterized by a message type and including one or more parameters and which causes a change to an electronic trading system, from a trader, processing the received market data message and transmitting an acknowledgment message to the trader via the communications network responsive to the received market data message,
processing, by the processor, the received market data message and transmit an acknowledgment message to the trader via the communications network responsive to the received market data message;
processing the received market data message and transmitting an acknowledgment message to the trader via the communications network responsive to the received market data message,
determining, by the processor, a message quality score, wherein the message quality score is assigned a value based at least in part on a weighted sum of: the change in the price level; the order size; and the time that the prior order has been in the electronic trading system;
7. wherein the message quality score is based at least in part on a weighted sum of: the change in the price level; the order size; and the time that the prior order has been in the electronic trading system.
augmenting, by the processor, the acknowledgment message with the message quality score prior to transmission to the trader; and
augmenting the acknowledgment message with the message quality score prior to transmission to the trader; and
determining, by the processor, a message volume control limit as a function of the message quality score and add or remove message capacity based thereon.
determining a message volume control limit as a function of the message quality score and add or remove message capacity based thereon.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112, six paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under r pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Closest US Patent/US Pre-Grant Publication
Wolf et al., US 2013/0041801 PTO-892, is the closest prior art. Forward citations of Wolf failed to reveal closer prior art. Forward/backward citations of Wolf, US 10,204,377, failed to reveal closer prior art. AI tools, More Like This Document (MLTD) and Similarity, failed to reveal closer prior art.
Wolf discloses:
[0047] … Accordingly, the disclosed embodiments may also improve the efficiency of the trading system 100 by reducing the number of implied orders which must be calculated, listed and managed, thereby minimizing the calculations that the trading system 100 must undertake and reduces the messages that are transmitted via market data.
[0048] It will be appreciated that for the purpose of keeping a particular bid/ask spread close, once calculated, an implied order may simply be prevented from being listed. While not necessarily reducing the computation load on the trading system 100, such an implementation would also improve system 100 efficiency by reducing message traffic as well as minimizing resources consumed due to listing and managing the implied orders.
Wolf alone or in combination with cited prior art fails to teach and/or suggest the combination of methods as claimed.
Closest Non-Patent Literature
Ice Futures Europe Circular, PTO-892 Item U “Revised Exchange Messaging Policy,” 2011, Archive.org/WaybackMachine/theice.com 10 Jan 2011, 3pgs, discloses: [page 1] The Exchange Messaging Policy (“the Policy”) is designed to discourage inefficient and excessive messaging without compromising market liquidity and sets out certain messaging thresholds which it expects market participants not to exceed. Most market participants ’trading activity operates well within the thresholds set out in this Circular. The Exchange will levy charges on those Members whose system usage per Firm as configured on the ICE Platform (whether the Firm is the Member itself or a client of the Member) exceeds certain thresholds The Weighted Volume Ratio (“WVR”) is defined as the total number of messages sent to the ICE Platform multiplied by a price-based weighting scale divided by the total number of lots traded. The result is a figure for weighted messages per executed contract.
Ice Futures Europe alone or in combination with cited prior art fails to teach and/or suggest the combination of methods as claimed.
35 USC 101-Subject Matter Eligibility
It is the undersigned examiner’s opinion that all independent claims provide a practical application, under Step 2A (second prong) eligibility analysis. Quantifying the efficiency of a market data message, based in part upon a message quality score and adding or removing message capacity based upon a message control limit as a function of the message quality, is key to reducing computations load and communication bandwidth. Such reductions result in improvements to the functioning of a computer, network communications, or to any other technology or technical field, see MPEP 2106.04 (II)(A)(2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 PM.
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 supervisors can be reached: Maria-Teresa Thein at 571-272-6764 or Kambiz Abdi at 571-272-6702. 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 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.
/ROBERT M POND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights