20Notice 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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of August 29, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant has amended claims 1, 4, 7, 9-10, and 19. Based on Applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) lack of algorithm and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) means plus function has been withdrawn. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 has been updated in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s remarks do not overcome the § 112(b) rejection. The term “multi-response handling algorithm” remains indefinite because the claims do not recite any structural or algorithmic limitation that defines what constitutes the algorithm, and the specification does not provide a sufficiently clear and objective boundary for the term. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “multi-response handling algorithm” is a purely functional recitation that does not inform one of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the scope of the claimed subject matter. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). Applicant points to three exemplary approaches in the specification: sequential, pro-rata split and interleave, and pro-rata aggregation and notes that prioritization factors such as time, size, price, payment, and volume are also disclosed. However, the specification describes these as “various approaches” and “may implement” options, not as a closed set. See Specification at (0088 –0093), (0103–0104). The term “multi-response handling algorithm” is not defined in the specification as being limited to any of those examples; to the contrary, the specification states that the algorithm “may” use them, implying other possibilities. Thus, the term is open-ended and its scope cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
The Federal Circuit has held that “claim language that is merely functional and not tied to specific structure is indefinite where the specification does not provide sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.” See In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, “multi-response handling algorithm” is a functional descriptor without any accompanying structure in the claim itself, and the specification’s non-exhaustive examples do not provide a definitive structure. One of ordinary skill would not know, from the claim language alone, what specific algorithm or process is required to satisfy the limitation, as the term invokes a result of handling multiple responses without defining the means for achieving that result. See MPEP § 2173.05(g) (“A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”).
Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific technical architecture that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant points to the memory storing event response pairs, the network interface receiving trigger information, and the processor performing evaluation and sequencing as a “particular machine” integral to the claimed solution. Applicant further argues that the claims address the technical problem of latency in networked trading systems and that the local storage of predicates and immediate order preparation provide a technical solution to that problem.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The concept of storing rules (event predicates), receiving data (trigger information), evaluating that data against the rules to determine if conditions are met, and then generating an output (trading instructions) based on that evaluation is a process of conditional logic and automated decision-making. These processes have long been within the realm of commercial activity. The fact that the claims are implemented on a computer does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014).
The limitations relied upon by Applicant do not supply an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The memory, network interface, and processor are recited at a high level of generality and are described only by their functions. The claims do not set forth how these components are specially programmed or structurally modified to achieve the alleged latency improvements. The specification describes that the event response host “may employ various optimization techniques to enhance the speed and efficiency of predicate evaluation,” such as indexing and caching (0079). The claims, however, do not recite indexing, caching, or any other specific optimization. The claimed system is described functionally “configured to evaluate,” “configured to prepare,” “configured to sequence” without any structural particularities that would distinguish the claimed system from a general-purpose computer programmed to perform the abstract steps of rule evaluation and response generation.
Applicant’s reliance on USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47 is unavailing. In Example 47, the claims recited specific remedial actions that proactively improved network security, such as isolating a device from the network and generating a remedial action identifier based on a detected anomaly. The claims here do not recite any analogous remedial action that improves the networked system itself beyond the performance of the abstract process. The preparation and transmission of orders are the very outputs of the abstract process, not a remedial action that improves the underlying system. Similarly, the generation of unified market data messages, while potentially a useful format, is a data formatting step that does not alter the character of the claims from abstract to concrete. The claims do not recite how the unified market data message improves the functioning of the network or the processor beyond presenting information in a combined format.
Applicant argues that the local storage of predicates is “not routine for networked trading systems.” The specification, however, describes local storage as a feature that enables efficient evaluation (0054). But the claim itself does not require local storage in any way that distinguishes over conventional practice; any memory could store the event response pairs. The claim does not recite a memory located proximate to the processor to reduce latency, nor does it recite any other structural limitation that would tie the claimed system to a specific, non-conventional implementation.
The argument that the claims do not preempt all methods of rules-based trading is not dispositive. Preemption is a concern that informs the Alice analysis, but the absence of complete preemption does not render a claim patent-eligible if the claim is drawn to an abstract idea without an inventive concept. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (rejecting argument that claims do not preempt all price optimization because claims failed to provide inventive concept). The claims here recite a specific implementation of an abstract idea using generic computer components, but the recited implementation does not provide the requisite inventive concept. The claims are therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept that integrates the idea into a practical 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of rules based trading without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium system which are one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 10 recites “a method comprising:
storing, by a …, a plurality of event response pairs, each event response pair comprising an event predicate and an associated underlying order;
receiving, by the …, a continuous stream of trigger information entries from internal and external network sources, … to aggregate and serialize messages;
evaluating, by the …, each received trigger information entry against each event predicate to identify one or more matched predicates;
for each of the one or more matched predicates, preparing, by the …, the associated underlying order for transmission over a network to a specified destination;
if multiple different responses are triggered simultaneously, sequencing, by the processor, the associated underlying order based on a multi-response handling algorithm for network transmission; and
transmitting, via the …, the associated underlying order to the specified destination based on the sequence”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of rules based trading and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic practice). Accordingly, claim 10 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
The claim also recites as additional elements such as “processor, network interface, and wherein the network interface is configured” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 10 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 10 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1 and 19 also recite the abstract idea of idea of rules based trading and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic practice) step one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 1 includes the additional elements of “a system comprising a memory configured, network interface configured, processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the network interface, the processor configured”. Claim 19 includes the additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to and network, wherein the network interface is configured. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claims 2 and 11 each recite “wherein each event predicate comprises a trigger asset field and one more additional fields comprising at least one of: an event type field, an event book side field, a minimum price field, a maximum price field, a minimum quantity field, a maximum quantity field, and an operation code field comprising programming instructions” which further define the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 12 each recite “wherein the … is further configured to generate and publish a unified market structure enriched market data message, wherein the unified market structure enriched market data message combines book updates and trade publication into a single publication” which further describe the abstract idea which further describe the abstract idea. The claims includes “processor” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claims 4 and 13 each recite “wherein the unified market structure enriched market data message further combines new trading instructions, trader instruction modifications, trading instructions, cancellations, and top-of-book information” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 14 each recites “wherein publishing the unified market structure enriched market data message comprises publishing to a single data stream configured to recreate a complete system-state based on a prior … system-state” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “snapshot” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claims 6 and 15 each recite “wherein the … to modify the stored event response pairs to remove or update processed event responses” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “processor is further configured” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the multi-response handling algorithm prioritizes trading instructions based on at least one of: time of predicate match, order size, or price parameters” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 17 each recite “wherein the multi-response handling algorithm comprises payment- based prioritization” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 18 each recite “wherein the specified destination comprises a trading venue and the evaluate comprises parsing incoming information to extract relevant parameters of tat least one asset identifier, price levels, quantities, and event types” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the unified market structure enriched market data message further combines new orders, order modifications, order cancellations, and top-of-book information” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the multi-response handling algorithm prioritizes orders based on at least one of: time of predicate match, order size, or price parameters” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 each recite “underlying trading instructions”. The specification, however, consistently describes the response component as an “underlying order.” See specification at (0010) (“associated underlying order”), (0053) (“underlying order field 104 may contain information about the order to be executed”), (0103 (“associated underlying order for transmission”). The specification does not describe “trading instructions” as a distinct type of response separate from an “order.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the full scope of “underlying trading instructions” as recited in claim 1, given that the specification exclusively uses the term “order” when describing the response component. *See MPEP § 2163.02 (“The test for written description is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”).
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected as each depends on claims 1, 10, and 19.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form the rejections under this section made in this Office action.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buck. [US Pub No. 2014/0180902 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Lariviere discloses a system comprising:
a memory configured to store a plurality of event response pairs, each event response pair comprising an event predicate and an associated underlying trading instructions (0028-0030, 0041-0043);
a network interface configured to receive a continuous stream of trigger information entries from internal and external network sources, wherein the trigger information includes trigger data (0020-0021, 0029); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the network interface, the processor configured to (0017, 0044):
evaluate each received trigger information entry against each event predicate in the event response pairs to identify one or more matched predicates (0017, 0044),
for each of the one or more matched predicates, prepare the associated underlying trading instructions corresponding to the associated event response pair, for transmission over a network to a specified destination (0017, claim 2),
if multiple different responses are triggered simultaneously, sequence the associated underlying trading instructions from the associated event response pairs, based on a multi-response handling algorithm for network transmission (Abstract, 0017), and
transmit, via the network interface, the associated underlying trading instructions from the event response pairs to the specified destination based on the sequence (claim 2).
Claims 10 and 19 are directed to the same underlying invention as claim 1, which Buck fully discloses. No meaningful structural or functional distinction exists among the system, method, and computer-readable claims and thus claims 10 and 19 are rejected on the identical prior art grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Buck discloses wherein each event predicate comprises a trigger asset field and one more additional fields comprising at least one of: an event type field, an event book side field, a minimum price field, a maximum price field, a minimum quantity field, a maximum quantity field, and an operation code field comprising programming instructions (0004, claim 3).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 20, Buck discloses wherein the processor is further configured to generate and publish a unified market structure enriched market data message, wherein the unified market structure enriched market data message combines book updates and trade publication into a single publication (0021).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Buck discloses wherein the unified market structure enriched market data message further combines new trading instructions, trading instructions modifications, trading instructions cancellations, and top-of-book information (0021).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Buck discloses wherein publishing the unified market structure enriched market data message comprises publishing to a single data stream configured to recreate a complete system-state based on a prior snapshot system-state (0020, 0052).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Buck discloses wherein the processor is further configured to modify the stored event response pairs to remove or update processed event responses (0043, claim 5).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Buck discloses wherein the multi-response handling algorithm prioritizes trading instructions based on at least one of: time of predicate match, order size, or price parameters (0017, claim 2).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Buck discloses wherein the multi-response handling algorithm comprises payment- based prioritization (0046, 0059).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Buck discloses wherein the specified destination comprises a trading venue (Abstract, 0044).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights