DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received June 05, 2026. Claim 11 has been canceled. No Claims have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-33 are pending and addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission has been entered.
Priority
Application No. 19326910 filed 09/12/2025 is a Continuation of 13952866 , filed 07/29/2013 ,now U.S. Patent # 12450653 and having 5 RCE-type filing therein 13952866 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 61677833 , filed 07/31/2012
Applicant Name/Assignee: The Clearing Corporation
Inventor(s): Lis, Benjamin; Lepart, Francois
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The applicant did not provide any new arguments after the response dated 05/22/2026 or new amendments after the submission dated March 06, 2026. See response below.
Claim Interpretation
The term “firm trade” to be a trade that has been agreed to and is to be or is being processed.
The term “linking trade module” to be any computer instruction module to request/require enrichment/refinement of data.
With respect to the limitation “identify, by a trading link module of the server, the one device as comprising the API, and the remaining device as failing to include the API” in light of the specification, the term “identify” is interpreted to be processing communications using an API of a computing device able to communicate with computing device configured with a different GUI interface.
The specification discloses with respect to “API” and GUI interfaces
[0015]… The firm trade notification may be straight-through processed to the trade participants using an Application Programming Interface (API) associated with the computer….
[0016]… The firm trade may be enriched by a trading participant using a graphical user interface (GUI). In another embodiment the firm trade may be enriched automatically by a trade participant's computing device using the API provided by the computer or associated with the computer….
[0022]… The clearinghouse server may also be configured to straight through process the firm trade notification to the trade participants using an API associated with the clearinghouse server…
[0023]… The trade may be enriched by a user computing device though a graphical user interface (GUI) provided by the clearinghouse server. In one embodiment, the graphical user interface may be configured to display the economic
details of the firm trade and the identities of the firm trade counterparties. In another embodiment, the GUI may be configured to display the clearinghouse entity as the counterparty, and not to display the identity of the crossed and locked counterparty…. a user computing device may be configured to enrich the firm automatically using an API provided by the clearinghouse server….
[0032]… the trading link module 155 may be configured to receive firm trade enrichment data from the first clearing participant 105 via an API provided by the clearinghouse server 110…
[0033]… The trade capture module 125 may further be configured to automatically provide the firm trade enrichment data to the clearinghouse server 110 via an API associated with the clearinghouse server
[0038] The first clearing participant 105 may then provide firm trade enrichment data 182a. via an API using the trade capture module 125. The second clearing participant 115 may provide firm trade enrichment data 182b via a GUI 120….
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2010/0005030 A1 by DePetris (DePetris), in view of US Pub No. 2007/0011685 by Yim et al. (Yim) and US Pub No. 2017/0278188 A1 by Roeill et al. (Roeill)
In reference to Claim 1:
DePetris teaches:
(Previously Presented) A system ((DePetris) in at least FIG. 12; para 0096) comprising:
a server comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable medium ((DePetris) in at least Fig. 12, FIG. 18B; para 0096, para 0106, para 0262-0263), the server configured to:
receive a hypothetical trade from a first computing device, the hypothetical trade comprising a first type that is incompatible with processing by a clearing module of the server ((DePetris) in at least Table 4; para 0097-0098, para 0141-0142, para 0145, para 0147-0151, para 0262-0264, para 0301-0303, para 0347-0361, para 0366 wherein the prior art teaches creating hypothetical trade and discards those that do not meet conditions);
convert the hypothetical trade into a firm trade of the first type by identifying a second computing device as a counterparty to the hypothetical trade ((DePetris) in at least para 0255-0266, para 0363-0375, para 0277-0289), wherein one device of the first computing device and the second computing device comprises an application programming interface (API) associated with the server, and a remaining device of the first computing device and the second computing device comprises an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) ((DePetris) in at least para 0314, para 0338, para 0342 wherein the prior art teaches entering orders through interactive interface as API not available);…
automatically receive, by the trading link module, from a trade capture module of the one device via the API, participant specific data corresponding to one of a first participant and a second participant associated with the one device, responsive to the data request ((DePetris) in at least para 0276-0288, para 0314, para 0338, para 0425-0426);…
automatically transmit, by the trading link module, a further data request to the remaining device such that the further data request is configured to be displayed on the interactive GUI of the remaining device, the further data request comprising a prompt to enter further participant specific data corresponding to a remaining one of the first participant and the second participant associated with the remaining device ((DePetris) in at least para 0006, para 0067, para 0070-0071, para 0077, para 0279-0289, para 0426), and
receive, by the trading link module, the further participant specific data input to the interactive GUI from the remaining device ((DePetris) in at least para 0279-0289, para 0401-0404, para 0418-0426);
convert, by the clearing module, the firm trade to an enriched firm trade by appending the participant specific data and the further participant specific data to the firm trade ((DePetris) in at least para 0276-0289, para 0425-0426);
convert, by the clearing module, the enriched firm trade to a cleared trade of a second type that is compatible with processing by the clearing module by ((DePetris) in at least para 0264, para 0280-0281, para 0289, para 0290-0291); …
submit the cleared trade to a trade reporting repository.((DePetris) in at least para 0291-0294)
DePetris suggest but does not explicitly teach:
processing a first portion of the enriched firm trade with a first account associated with the first participant based on account identification data in one of the participant specific data and the further participant specific data, the first participant associated with the first computing device, and processing a second portion of the enriched firm trade with a second account associated with the second participant based on account identification data in a remaining one of the participant specific data and the further participant specific data, the second participant associated with the second computing device ((DePetris) in at least FIG. 5; FIG. 8C wherein the prior art illustrates determining portion to match between traders AB (ref# 373-376) and illustrates another borrower trader to match ref # 382 for additional inventory to ref # 373); FIG. 13-14; para 0071, para 0267 wherein the prior art teaches clearing member (CM) has one or more house accounts for trades and affiliated accounts; para 0276-0277 wherein the prior art teaches trading module divides trade into two trades one portion attributable to the non-clearing member (NCM) and the other portion attributable to CM , para 0279-0282, para 0289, para 0306, para 0405, para 0416, para 0426, para 0435 , para 0486-0489, para 0514 wherein the prior art teaches order filled by multiple counter parties; para 0543; Claim 1 wherein the prior art teaches executing on a computer of a buyer and seller for a trade); and
According to KSR, common sense rationale, obviousness can be found when the prior art references provides some teaching, suggest or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. Although the prior art does not explicitly teach “the first participant associated with the first computing device”,…” second participant associated with the second computing device”, the prior art does provide some teaching, suggestion and motivation and also in general knowledge available with respect to computerized trading to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference. The prior art explicitly teaches a computerized trading system where a buyer computer and seller computer trade for stock. This provides sufficient motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a first and second participant associated with a first and second respective computing device with a reasonable expectation of success.
The prior art reference further teaches that trades include appending clearing member identifiers to trades, the creation of securities which include individual identifiers (para 0406), with unique trade contract identifiers, security identifiers (para 0486, 0489), identifiers of the underlying stock that change when stocks are allocated (para 0543), accordingly the prior art provides some teaching, suggestion and motivation where the first and second respective accounts associated with first participant (buyer, clearing member)and second participant (seller, non-clearing member) is based on identification data in participant specific data to modify the reference to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore it is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that traders/participants have identifiers for accounts that participate in trades specific to participants. Accordingly the limitation is obvious.
With respect to the limitations “processing a first portion” and “processing a second portion”, the prior art references explicitly teaches portioning trades (see FIG. 8C and teaches splitting trades (para 0514) between multiple parties which provides some teaching, suggestion and motivation to modify the prior art reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore it is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that trade orders can be allocated or traded in first and second portions or multiple portions based on trading strategies or market conditions. Accordingly the limitation is obvious.
DePetris does not explicitly teach:
identify, by a trading link module of the server, the one device as comprising the API, and the remaining device as failing to include the API;
responsive to identifying that the one device comprises the API: automatically transmit, by the trading link module, a data request to the one device via the API, such that the data request is automatically received and processed by the API;
automatically transmit, by the trading link module, a further data request…;
Yim teaches:
identify, by a trading link module of the server, the one device as comprising the API, and the remaining device as failing to include the API ((Yim) in at least abstract; para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches management services provides API program interface for universal communication with different interfaces , para 0013 wherein the prior art teaches load manager implementing API to provide communication with different interfaces and can be provides in the form of web-based services, para 0016-0018 wherein the prior art teaches application program interfaces providing communication with different interfaces of different load balances where the API can be implemented to receive instructions as individually translated instruction sets via different respective interfaces of different load balancers, para 0021-0022 wherein the prior art teaches implementing an API with any number of API methods for communication between the API and GUI and teaches develop, build or generate custom application with different interfaces via API, para 0023 wherein the prior art teaches functions performed by remote device linked through communication networks, para 0047 wherein the prior art teaches establishing communications by establishing communication links between devices);
responsive to identifying that the one device comprises the API: automatically transmit, by the trading link module, a data request to the one device via the API, such that the data request is automatically received and processed by the API ((Yim) in at least para 0004, para 0012-0013, para 0018 wherein the prior art teaches including API that provides universal communication with different interfaces to receive and translate instructions from respective different interfaces, para 0023 wherein the prior art teaches functions performed by remote device linked through communication networks, para 0027 wherein the prior art teaches receiving unified instruction set via API generated at remote user device , para 0047 wherein the prior art teaches establishing communications by establishing communication links between devices), and …
responsive to identifying that the remaining device fails to include the API ((Yim) in at least abstract; para 0004, para 0013, para 0016-0018, para 0020-0022, para 0028):
automatically transmit, by the trading link module, a further data request…((Yim) in at least para 0016-0018, para 0020-0022, para 0027-0029)
Both DePetris and Yim teach applying different interfaces including API’s for communication between devices where devices have different interfaces. DePetris teaches that orders in the trade can be communicated through either through computer to computer interface GUI or API (DePetris para 0314). Yim teaches the motivation of system servers to balance data communications which include API for universal communication with different interfaces of different devices with different interfaces providing universal communication with different interfaces. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the API and GUI interfaces applied for communication to include identifying whether devices have API’s or GUI interfaces as taught by Yim since Yim teaches the motivation of system servers to balance data communications which include API for universal communication with different interfaces of different devices with different interfaces providing universal communication with different interfaces.
Roeill teaches:
processing a first portion of the enriched firm trade with a first account associated with the first participant based on account identification data in one of the participant specific data and the further participant specific data, the first participant associated with the first computing device, and processing a second portion of the enriched firm trade with a second account associated with the second participant based on account identification data in a remaining one of the participant specific data and the further participant specific data, the second participant associated with the second computing device associated with the second computing device ((Roeill) in at least FIG. 1; para 0008, para 0010, para 0063, para 0066; Claim 8).
Although Roeill does not explicitly recite the language "second account" or "second computing device" the prior art does teach trade pre-clearance criteria which includes compiling the account information for "one or more" accounts of the trading entities in trade request where the pre-clearance client's account executed order is based on account identifiers and account indicators of one or more parties to the transaction which suggest a second account as transaction parties include two parties (e.g. buyer/seller). The prior art DePetris teaches a trading system where the traders apply computers for interacting with trading systems for executing trades where each party has a computer able to see what each party entered (see FIG. 1; para 0003, para 0006, para 0076).
According to KSR, obvious rationale which includes the prior art provides some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art that would have led of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention with the teaching of account identifiers and other account data of each of the of the parties of a transaction and the enrichment of the data applied in the transaction pre-clearance, although while the prior art Roeill does not explicitly state that each party of the transaction applies its own computer in the transaction. Roeill does teach applying computers in the transaction. DePetris makes clear that the transaction parties each using computers to communicate with trading systems. Accordingly, the combination of each of the parties computer of DePetris in the transaction with a trading system with the teaching of Roeill of enriching firm trade data associated with the account and the respective computers of each of the parties of the pre-clearance trade with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the prior art provides some teaching or suggestion that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed subject matter. 44. Both DePetris and Roeill are directed toward transaction processes and clearance using enriched data. Roeill teaches the motivation of applying a pre- clearance process for one or more transactions which include enriching transaction data comprising account numbers corresponding to the transaction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention was made to modify the transaction process of DePetris to include pre-clearance process as taught by Roeill since Roeill teaches the motivation of applying a pre-clearance process for one or more transactions which include enriching transaction data comprising account numbers corresponding to the transaction.
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of DePetris, Roeill and Yim discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. DePetris further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2.
(Original) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the clearing module converts the hypothetical trade to the firm trade by executing a price discovery process in which theoretical bids and offers are crossed and locked. ((DePetris) in at least para 0029, para 0060, para 0144, para 0217, para 0251, para 0255, para 0272-0279, para 0319 wherein the prior art teaches price level in interval of crossing prices; para 0327 wherein the prior art teaches two price levels equally close to midpoint, para 0333)
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of DePetris, Roeill and Yim discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2. DePetris further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3.
(Original) The system of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above),
wherein the price discovery process includes functions, executed by the clearing module, that cause the server to: generate a representative price based on the hypothetical trade ((DePetris) in at least para 0029, para 0090-0091, para 0102-0104, para 0160-0180, para 0255-0265, para 0272-0294); and
determine a price of the firm trade based on the representative price ((DePetris) in at least para 0029, para 0255-0265, para 0272-0294, para 0333, para 0529-0539).
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of DePetris, Roeill and Yim discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. DePetris further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5.
(Original) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the clearing module is further configured to process the enriched firm trade as the cleared trade between the first computing device, the second computing device, and the server directly as a respective counterparty. ((DePetris) in at least para 0279, para 0281-0285, para 0289-0293)
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of DePetris, Roeill and Yim discloses the limitations of independent claim 5. DePetris further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6.
(Original) The system of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above),
wherein the interactive GUI is further configured to display additional firm trade data, the additional firm trade data indicating that one of the first participant and the second participant and the server are respective trade counterparties. ((DePetris) in at least para 0003, para 0332, para 0347-0361, para 0289-0294; Table 11-13)
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of DePetris, Roeill and Yim discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. DePetris further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8
(Original) The system of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above),
wherein the enriched firm trade is considered null and void if the server rejects the firm trade.((DePetris) in at least FIG. 8 and associated text; para 0303-0307).
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of DePetris, Roeill and Yim discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. DePetris further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9
(Original) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the clearing module is further configured to:
receive one or more trade submissions from one or more clearing participant systems via one or more computing devices to generate the firm trade ((DePetris) in at least para 0006, para 0063-0068); and
compare the received one or more trade submissions from among the one or more clearing participant systems to create the hypothetical trade.((DePetris) in at least abstract; FIG. 12; para 0029, para 0097-0098, para 0138-0139, para 0142, para 0161, para 0262-0264, para 0290, para 0301-0303, para 0347-0361, para 0363-0371)
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2010/0005030 A1 by DePetris (DePetris), in view of US Pub No. 2007/0011685 A1 by Yim et al. (Yim) in view of US Pub No. 2017/0278188 A1 by Roeill et al. (Roeill) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Implementing OTC Derivatives Market Reforms” by FSB (FSB).
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of DePetris, Roeill and Yim discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. DePetris further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4.
(Original) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
DePetris does not explicitly teach:
wherein the clearing module is further configured to straight- through process (STP) the enriched firm trade to at least one of the first computing device and the second computing device.
FSB teaches:
wherein the clearing module is further configured to straight- through process (STP) the enriched firm trade to at least one of the first computing device and the second computing device. ((FSB) in at least Section 2.1.2, Section 2.2; page 3)
Both DePetris and FSB teach automated trade systems. FSB teaches the motivation of STP in order to facilitate central clearing and processes and to reduce operational risk and time for each trades step process, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention was made to modify the trade system of DePetris to include STP as taught by FSB since FSB teaches the motivation of STP in order to facilitate central clearing and processes and to reduce operational risk and time for each trades step process.
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2010/0005030 A1 by DePetris (DePetris), in view of US Pub No. 2007/0011685 A1 by Yim et al. (Yim) in view of US Pub No. 2017/0278188 A1 by Roeill et al. (Roeill) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2012/0078775 A1 by Callahan (Callahan)
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of DePetris, Roeill and Yim discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. DePetris further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7.
(Original) The system of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above),
DePetris does not explicitly teach:
wherein the clearing module is further configured to avoid processing the enriched firm trade as a bilateral trade.
Callahan teaches:
wherein the clearing module is further configured to avoid processing the enriched firm trade as a bilateral trade ((Callahan) in at least para 0034-0036)
With respect to the term "avoid", the prior art teaches that in the event there are more than two parties that a multilateral trade is implemented, therefore, if there are more than two participants in a trade and a trade is process, the trade inherently avoids a bilateral trade because the trade must be multilateral.
Both DePetris and Callahan teach trades between different entities. Callahan teaches the motivation that when there are multiple buyers and sellers that certain trade
platforms allow multi-lateral trade in order to allow a plurality of buyers and sellers to
trade. It would have been obvious to expand the trading platform of DePetris to include
multi-lateral trading as taught by Callahan since Callahan teaches the motivation that
when there are multiple buyers and sellers that certain trade platforms allow multi-lateral
trade in order to allow a plurality of buyers and sellers to trade.
Claim(s) 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2010/0005030 A1 by DePetris (DePetris), in view of US Pub No. 2007/0011685 A1 by Yim et al. (Yim) in view of US Pub No. 2017/0278188 A1 by Roeill et al. (Roeill) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub No. 2006/0041605 A1 by King et al. (King)
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of DePetris, Roeill and Yim discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. DePetris further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 10
(Original) The system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), …
automatically generate without any input from the remaining device, enriching data using default values for the remaining one of the first participant and the second participant associated with the remaining device, and further convert the firm trade to the enriched firm trade by appending the enriching data to the firm trade. ((DePetris) in at least para 0131-0132, para 0144, para 0279-0280, para 0425-0426)
DePetris does not explicitly teach:
wherein when the trading link module does not receive the further participant specific data from the remaining device via the interactive GUI within a predetermined time period, the clearing module is further configured to:
King teaches:
wherein when the trading link module does not receive the further participant specific data from the remaining device via the interactive GUI within a predetermined time period, the clearing module is further configured to: automatically generate without any input from the remaining device, enriching data using default values for the remaining one of the first participant and the second participant associated with the remaining device, and further convert the firm trade to the enriched firm trade by appending the enriching data to the firm trade. ((King) in at least para 0569)
Both DePetris and King teach data collection and that the data needs to be
validated/refined/enriched. King teaches the motivation that in the event that
data received has not been validated that the system can apply default data/values until
the new data has been validated in order for the transaction to continue. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention was made
to modify the data processing as taught by DePetris to include the data processing of
King since King teaches the motivation that in the event that data received has not been
validated that the system can apply default data/values until the new data has been
validated in order for the transaction to continue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights