DETAILED ACTION
Notice 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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received July 30, 2026. No Claim(s) have been canceled. No Claims have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-72 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 14/715,551 Filing date: 05/18/2015.
Applicant Name/Assignee: FMR LLC
Inventors: Bisikalo, Dmitry; Nikolaey, Igor; Mulligan, Tom
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant thanks the examiner for withdrawal of objections and rejections under 112(a). Applicant is in error, the 112(a) rejection has not been withdrawn and is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant points to the USPTO 2025 Kim memo and 2024 USPTO 101 Guidance update with respect to machine learning consideration. Applicant argues the previous Office action has not met the burden in following the USPTO guidelines including the 2025 Kim Memo with arbitrary use of “apply it” in the analysis. Applicant points to para 0070 of the previous Office action and the analysis which found the functions recited to be high level to apply the exception using generic computer components, where the applied model functions of determining modified nodes of the data structure (model) is modified by inputted data and determine dependent nodes are not directed toward improvement to learning technology. The determining functions are directed toward assisting in determination and recalculation of relationships and random variables are no more than data content inputted. The claim limitations do not encompass technical processes related to randomization that could be considered significantly more. Applicant argues the Kim memo is ignored in the analysis of the limitations with the use of the “apply it” in the analysis. Applicant argues the argument above delineates how the application claims specific certain technology and does not recite “nonfunctional description/broad functional language” being performed by generic use of at least one processor. Applicant points to Berkheimer which directs consideration of software for patent eligibility. Applicant argues that according to MPEP 2106II(C), all words in a claim must be considered. In the remarks applicant points to the Desjardins decision regarding machine learning for consideration of patent eligibility. Applicant argues the previous Office Action does not properly consider the specification for indications of improvement to machine learning technology in considerations for patent eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that applicant has not identified any of the limitations that go beyond high level functions with expected results. The applicant does not explain what limitations specifically provide more than high level functions with expected results and content which is used for determination and calculations of relationships between probability nodes. The specification discloses:
[0035] Model configuration for the model may be determined at 205. In one embodiment, the model training request may be parsed (e.g., using PHP commands) to determine the model configuration. For example, model configuration may include model name, security associated with the model, nodes associated with the model, node names, node dependencies, node inputs, historical data sources for inputs, node outcomes, and/ or the like. In another embodiment, the model training request may be parsed to determine an identifier of an existing model and model configuration of the existing model may be retrieved (e.g., from a PATP database). For example, the user may specify the identifier of an existing model stored in the P ATP database that the user wishes to retrain.
[0036] A determination may be made at 209 whether there remain model nodes to analyze. In one embodiment, each of the nodes in the model may be analyzed to estimate unconditional probabilities and/ or conditional probabilities associated with the node's inputs and/ or outcomes. If there remain model nodes to analyze, the next node with available data may be selected at 213. In some embodiments, nodes may depend on other nodes (e.g., nodes in the model may be arranged as an acyclic directed graph) and goal probabilities associated with precedent nodes may be calculated before analyzing dependent nodes. Accordingly, a node that relies on historical data and/ or precedent nodes for which goal probabilities have been estimated may be selected.
[0037] A determination may be made at 221 whether the selected node depends on historical data. In one embodiment, inputs associated with the node may be analyzed to make this determination. In one implementation, if an input associated with the selected node is associated with a historical data source, the selected node depends on historical data. If it is determined that the selected node depends on historical data, historical input data for the selected node may be retrieved at 225 (e.g., via a MySQL database command), and probabilities for the selected node may be calculated at 229. In one embodiment, unconditional probabilities may be estimated. For example, one of the inputs associated with the selected node may be debt ratio associated with the security. Unconditional probabilities for this input may be calculated based on the proportions of time ( e.g., percent of days over the past year) that debt ratio associated with the security was below (e.g., 20%), on par with (e.g., 50%), or above (e.g., 30%) industry average. In another embodiment, conditional probabilities may be estimated. For example, goal probabilities (e.g., probabilities that the price of the security will overbid, stay on par with, or underbid the price of S&P 500 index) associated with each possible outcome (e.g., Price> 110% S&P 500 (overbid), 90% S&P 500 < Price < 110% S&P 500 (on par with), Price < 90% S&P 500 (underbid)) may be conditionally dependent on probabilities associated with inputs. In one implementation, conditional probabilities for the outcomes may be calculated using a naive Bayes classifier.
[0038] A determination may be made at 231 whether the selected node depends on other nodes. In one embodiment, inputs associated with the node may be analyzed to make this determination. In one implementation, if an input associated with the selected node depends on goal probabilities associated with a precedent node, the selected node depends on other nodes. If it is determined that the selected node depends on other nodes, goal probabilities associated with precedent nodes may be obtained at 235 ( e.g., by analyzing data structures associated with precedent nodes), and probabilities for the selected node may be calculated at 239. In one embodiment, conditional probabilities for the outcomes may be estimated based on probabilities associated with inputs ( e.g., probabilities for inputs calculated using historical data, probabilities for inputs obtained based on data associated with precedent nodes). In one implementation, conditional probabilities for the outcomes may be calculated using a naive Bayes classifier.
[0039] Parameters data for the selected node may be stored at 243 (e.g., in a data structure). For example, parameters data for the selected node may include node name, node dependencies, node inputs, historical data sources for inputs, node outcomes, calculated goal probabilities associated with each possible outcome, and/ or the like.
[0040] If it is determined that model nodes have been analyzed, model parameters data may be stored at 247 (e.g., in the PATP database). For example, model parameters data may include model configuration data, parameters data associated with the model's nodes, and/ or the like.
The specification makes clear that the nodes of the model applied to receive inputs, and data points representing data that is inputted that are connected to other data points according to data relationships and computational units applied to calculate goal probabilities. The specification makes clear that the learning network and corresponding nodes is merely applying technology to analyze inputted historical data in order to calculate probability goals. Technological improvement is not the focus on the node functionality.
[0043] A determination may be made at 309 whether domain expert input data has been provided. In one embodiment, domain expert input data may be data provided by a domain expert ( e.g., a portfolio manager, another P ATP component that performs an analysis to generate expert data) that modifies probabilities associated with one or more nodes of the model. For example, domain expert input data may include probabilities for an input (e.g., debt ratio associated with the security) of a node, probabilities associated with possible outcomes (e.g., Price > 110% S&P 500 (overbid), 90% S&P 500 < Price < 110% S&P 500 ( on par with), Price < 90% S&P 500 (underbid)) of a node, and/ or the like. In one embodiment, the security analysis request may be parsed to determine whether domain expert input data has been provided.
[0044] If it is determined that domain expert input data has been provided, a determination may be made at 313 whether there remain modified model nodes to analyze. In one embodiment, each of the nodes in the model for which probabilities have been modified by the domain expert may be analyzed. If there remain modified model nodes to analyze, the next modified node may be selected at 317. If domain expert input data includes modified probabilities for an input of the selected modified node, probabilities for the selected modified node may be recalculated in a similar manner as described below with regard to 333. Dependent nodes for the selected modified node may be determined at 321. In one embodiment, each of the nodes that has an input that depends ( e.g., directly or indirectly) on goal probabilities associated with the selected modified node may be determined.
[0045] A determination may be made at 325 whether there remain dependent nodes to analyze. In one embodiment, each of the dependent nodes may be analyzed to estimate modified unconditional probabilities and/ or conditional probabilities associated with the dependent node's inputs and/ or outcomes. If there remain dependent nodes to analyze, the next dependent node with available data may be selected at 329. In one embodiment, a dependent node that relies on historical data and/ or precedent nodes for which goal probabilities have been estimated may be selected.
[0046] Probabilities for the selected dependent node may be recalculated using modified data at 333. In one embodiment, unconditional probabilities for inputs may be recalculated (e.g., based on updated historical data). In another embodiment, conditional probabilities for outcomes may be recalculated based on (e.g., directly or indirectly) modified goal probabilities associated with the selected modified node. In one implementation, conditional probabilities for the outcomes may be recalculated using a naive Bayes classifier.
[0047] If it is determined that modified nodes and/ or associated dependent nodes have been analyzed, output value may be determined using recalculated probabilities at 337. In one embodiment, the output value may be goal probabilities (e.g., probabilities that the price of the security will overbid (30%), stay on par with (50%), or underbid (20%) the price of S&P 500 index) associated with each possible outcome (e.g., Price > 110% S&P 500 (overbid), 90% S&P 500 <Price< 110% S&P 500 (on par with), Price< 90% S&P 500 (underbid)) of a leaf node (e.g., node indicating results of the analysis) associated with the security. In another embodiment, the output value may be the most likely outcome (e.g., stay on par with the price of S&P 500 index) of a leaf node (e.g., node indicating results of the analysis) associated with the security. If it is determined that domain expert input data has not been provided, output value may be determined using default probabilities at 341.
[0048] A trading action may be facilitated at 345 based on the output value. In one embodiment, the trading action may be based on the most likely outcome of a leaf node (e.g., node indicating results of the analysis) associated with the security. For example, if the most likely outcome is for the security to stay on par with the price of S&P 500 index, the trading action may be to buy options on the security. In another embodiment, the trading action may be based on threshold values of goal probabilities associated with each possible outcome of a leaf node (e.g., node indicating results of the analysis) associated with the security. For example, if the probability that the security overbids the price of S&P 500 index exceeds 25%, the trading action may be to buy shares of the security.
[0049] FIGURE 4 shows a block diagram illustrating embodiments of an individual security model for the PATP. In Figure 4, a model comprising one node 401 for estimating an individual security's next day security price change compared to S&P 500 goal probabilities for outcomes (e.g., Price > 110% S&P 500 (overbid), 90% S&P 500 < Price < 110% S&P 500 (on par with), Price < 90% S&P 500 (underbid)) is shown. The node has inputs that are based on fundamental financial analysis parameters including debt ratio 405A, liquidity 405B, return on sales 405C, inventory turnover 405D, accounts receivable turnover 405E, and accounts payable turnover 405F. In various embodiments, other fundamental financial analysis parameters may be used as inputs in addition to and/ or instead of the inputs 405A-405F. In one implementation, inputs and outcomes may be represented as random variables (e.g., discreet random variables, continuous random variables). It is to be understood that a model based on fundamental financial analysis parameters may be used for index securities. Based on goal probabilities for outcomes, the model may recommend and/ or facilitate a trading action, such as to sell 409A (e.g., if the most likely outcome is Price < 90% S&P 500 (underbid)), hold 409B (e.g., if the most likely outcome is 90% S&P 500 < Price < 110% S&P 500 (on par with)), or buy 409C (e.g., if the most likely outcome is Price > 110% S&P 500 (overbid)) the security.
[0056] FIGURE 5 shows a block diagram illustrating embodiments of an index security model for the PATP. In Figure 5, a model comprising one node 501 for estimating an index security's (e.g., an ETF's) next day ETF price change compared to S&P 500 goal probabilities for outcomes (e.g., Price > 110% S&P 500 (overbid), 90% S&P 500 < Price <110% S&P 500 (on par with), Price < 90% S&P 500 (underbid)) is shown. The node has inputs that are based on trend analysis parameters including ETF daily% change 505A, ETF % change compared to S&P 500 505B, traded volume % 505C, ETF daily % high and low prices 505D, and ETF weekly% change 505F. In various embodiments, other trend analysis parameters may be used as inputs in addition to and/ or instead of the inputs 505A-505E. In one implementation, inputs and outcomes may be represented as random variables ( e.g., discreet random variables, continuous random variables). It is to be understood that a model based on trend analysis parameters may be used for individual securities. Based on goal probabilities for outcomes, the model may recommend and/ or facilitate a trading action, such as to sell 509A (e.g., if the most likely outcome is Price < 90% S&P 500 (underbid)), hold 509B ( e.g., if the most likely outcome is 90% S&P 500 < Price < 110% S&P 500 ( on par with)), or buy 509C (e.g., if the most likely outcome is Price> 110% S&P 500 (overbid))
[0063] FIGURE 6 shows a screenshot diagram illustrating embodiments of the PATP. In Figure 6, an exemplary model training application 601 is shown. The model training application includes a model visualization section 610, which shows an exemplary model for predicting the price of security SNA tomorrow. The model includes nodes SPX_Today 611, SPX_Yesterday 613, PSA_Yesterday 615, SNA_Yesterday 617, and SNA_Tomorrow 619. The model training application includes a model configuration section 620, which shows node parameters SPX_Today 621, SPX_Yesterday 623, PSA_Yesterday 625, SNA_Yesterday 627, and SNA_Tomorrow 629. The nodes in this model represent random variables that reflect change in prices today and yesterday of securities SPX, SNA, and PSA. The random variables are discrete and can take one of three values: price decreased, price stayed the same, and price increased. As seen from the model, the most likely value for each of the nodes is for the price to stay the same. In one implementation, mapping from continuous price changes to discrete values may be done based on historical data on price changes for each individual security.
0064] As seen from the model, node SNA_tomorrow ( e.g., node indicating results of the analysis - predicting what happens to price of security SNA tomorrow - the most likely value is that the price will stay the same) is conditionally dependent on nodes SPX_Today, PSA_ Yesterday and SNA_ Yesterday. Nodes PSA_ Yesterday and SNA_ Yesterday are conditionally dependent on node SPX_ Yesterday. In one embodiment, the conditional dependencies may be derived from historical data. Nodes SPX_Today and SPX_Yesterday are root nodes that do not depend on other nodes. Nodes PSA_ Yesterday and SNA_ Yesterday are internal nodes that depend on other nodes and have other dependent nodes. Node SNA_tomorrow is a leaf node that does not have other dependent nodes.
[0065] FIGURE 7 shows a screenshot diagram illustrating embodiments of the PATP. In Figure 7, additional details for the model shown in Figure 6 are provided. Expected probabilities associated with nodes SPX_Today 711, SPX_Yesterday 713, PSA_Yesterday 715, SNA_Yesterday 717, and SNA_Tomorrow 719 are shown. Based on the probabilities for nodes SPX_Today, SPX_Yesterday, PSA_Yesterday and SNA_Yesterday (e.g., price decreased 30%, price stayed the same 40%, and price increased 30%), the probabilities for node SNA_Tomorrow are determined (e.g., price will decreased 29.73%, price will stay the same 40.27%, and price will increase 30%).
[0066] FIGURE 8 shows a screenshot diagram illustrating embodiments of the PATP. In Figure 8, additional details for the model shown in Figure 6 are provided. Expected probabilities associated with nodes SPX_Today 811, SPX_Yesterday 813, PSA_Yesterday 815, SNA_Yesterday 817, and SNA_Tomorrow 819 are shown based on domain expert input data (e.g., a domain expert specified probabilities of 100% for price decreased outcome for nodes SPX_Today, PSA_Yesterday, SNA_Yesterday). Based on the provided domain expert input data, the probabilities for node SNA_Tomorrow are determined (e.g., price will decreased 20%, price will stay the same 50%, and price will increase 30%).
[0067] FIGURE 9 shows a screenshot diagram illustrating embodiments of the PATP. In Figure 9, another exemplary model is shown. This model deals with more securities ( e.g., the model may predict prices for five different securities), utilizes nodes that deal with price changes and trading volume changes, and uses outcome values that are percentage changes as compared to the previous value (e.g. under 95%, between 95% and 105%, over 105%).
[0068] FIGURE 10 shows a screenshot diagram illustrating embodiments of the PATP. In Figure 10, additional details regarding marked section 901 of Figure 9 are provided. Expected probabilities associated with nodes IWM Weekly Volume 1011, QQQ Weekly Volume 1013, EEM Weekly Volume 1015, IWM Today Price Change Adjusted 1021, QQQ Today Price Change Adjusted 1023, EEM Today Price Change Adjusted 1025, and QQQ Tomorrow Price Change Adjusted 1031 are shown. Node QQQ Tomorrow Price Change Adjusted ( e.g., node indicating results of the analysis - predicting what happens to price of security QQQ tomorrow - the most likely value is that the price will be between 95% and 105% as compared to the previous day) is conditionally dependent on the other six nodes. Based on the probabilities for the six precedent nodes, the probabilities for node QQQ Tomorrow Price Change Adjusted are determined (e.g., 32.99% that price will be under 95%, 40.08% that price will be between 95% and 105%, and 26.93% that price will be over 105%).
[0071] FIGURE 11 shows a screenshot diagram illustrating embodiments of the PATP. In Figure 11, additional details regarding marked section 901 of Figure 9 are provided. Expected probabilities associated with nodes IWM Weekly Volume 1111, QQQ Weekly Volume 1113, EEM Weekly Volume 1115, IWM Today Price Change Adjusted 1121, QQQ Today Price Change Adjusted 1123, EEM Today Price Change Adjusted 1125, and QQQ Tomorrow Price Change Adjusted 1131 are shown based on domain expert input data (e.g., a domain expert specified probabilities of 100% that weekly volume is over 110% for node IWM Weekly Volume and 100% that price will be under 95% compared to the previous day for node QQQ Today Price Change Adjusted). Based on the provided domain expert input data, the probabilities for node QQQ Tomorrow Price Change Adjusted are recalculated (e.g., 64.4% that price will be under 95%, 22.8% that price will be between 95% and 105%, and 12.8% that price will be over 105%). Such a significant probability that price of QQQ will be under 95% (e.g., exceeding a predetermined 45% probability threshold) may indicate potentially anomalous market behavior. Accordingly, a trading action may be facilitated (e.g., based on a trading model for hedging, risk management or market advantage).
[0075] Networks are commonly thought to comprise the interconnection and interoperation of clients, servers, and intermediary nodes in a graph topology. It should be noted that the term "server" as used throughout this application refers generally to a computer, other device, program, or combination thereof that processes and responds to the requests of remote users across a communications network. Servers serve their information to requesting "clients." The term "client" as used herein refers generally to a computer, program, other device, user and/ or combination thereof that is capable of processing and making requests and obtaining and processing any responses from servers across a communications network. A computer, other device, program, or combination thereof that facilitates, processes information and requests, and/ or furthers the passage of information from a source user to a destination user is commonly referred to as a "node." Networks are generally thought to facilitate the transfer of information from source points to destinations. A node specifically tasked with furthering the passage of information from a source to a destination is commonly called a "router." There are many forms of networks such as Local Area Networks (LANs), Pico networks, Wide Area Networks (WANs), Wireless Networks (WLANs), etc. For example, the Internet is generally accepted as being an interconnection of a multitude of networks whereby remote clients and servers may access and interoperate with one another.
[00111] A models table 1219e includes fields such as, but not limited to: modelID, modelParameters, modelSecurities, modelNodes, modelNodeDependencies, nodeID, nodeName, nodeinputs, nodeValue, nodeOutcomes, nodeProbabilities, and/or the like;
[00119] The structure and/ or operation of any of the P ATP node controller components may be combined, consolidated, and/ or distributed in any number of ways to facilitate development and/ or deployment. Similarly, the component collection may be combined in any number of ways to facilitate deployment and/ or development. To accomplish this, one may integrate the components into a common code base or in a facility that can dynamically load the components on demand in an integrated fashion. As such a combination of hardware may be distributed within a location, within a region and/ or globally where logical access to a controller may be abstracted as a singular node, yet where a multitude of private, semiprivate and publically accessible node controllers (e.g., via dispersed data centers) are coordinated to serve requests ( e.g., providing private cloud, semi-private cloud, and public cloud computing resources) and allowing for the serving of such requests in discrete regions (e.g., isolated, local, regional, national, global cloud access).
The specification makes clear that the focus of the application of the model and nodes is based on “fundamental financial analysis” and “parameters”. The specification discloses using input probabilities where modified probabilities are associated with one or more nodes of the model. The specification applying the model nodes to analyze estimated modified unconditional probabilities and/ or conditional probabilities associated with the dependent node's inputs and/ or outcomes as it relates to financial goals, bids, outcomes… Technological improvement is not the focus on the node functionality. Accordingly, the claim limitations which lack technical detail and merely describe the use of the technology to analyze inputted financial data to determine probability goals when viewed in light of the specification as required by USPTO 2015 Kim Memo, USPTO 2024 101 Guidance and Desjardins merely applies technology to implement the abstract idea without any indication of technical improvement. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues the previous Office Action ignores the claimed element “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” by deeming the limitation as a “non-functional” descriptor. Applicant points to MPEP 2111.04, 2103(I)(C ), MPEP 2143.03; which provides guidance for broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant argues that according to MPEP guidance, it is impermissible to apply the claim interpretation by deeming terms as interpreted as “descriptors” and stripping the word “automatic” as no different from manual or automatic transmissions which is objectively wrong. Applicant argues the claim interpretation with respect to structural elements “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” as “generic” user interface with just windows and buttons, instead a complicated underlying graph data structure. The specification and figures show and discuss the interface and how the interface lets you manipulate nodes of a graph topology effecting underlying graph topology data structures. Applicant points to Fig. 6 and para 0066 of the written disclosure. Applicant argues that para 0066 describes inputting into graph node a probability of price …causes all other nodes in the graph topology to be recalculated and updated for affected nodes. The limitations therefore are not mere descriptors but instead highly technical multi-weighted graph topology that is not visible or comprehensible to mortals, allowing users to change values in the underlying graph topology structure affecting calculations beyond what mortals can manage. Applicant argues with proper interpretation the limitations are patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The claim limitations recites “obtain, via variable node acyclic directed graph user interface, …input…”, “…input data selections obtained via the variable node acyclic directed graph interface” and “update the variable node acyclic directed graph user interface with any of …data selections…recalculated dependent nodes…recalculated probabilities….”. The specification nominally mentions the term “acyclic directed graph” which is not an interface and does not mention in the specification the operations of “acyclic directed interface”.
[0036] A determination may be made at 209 whether there remain model nodes to analyze. In one embodiment, each of the nodes in the model may be analyzed to estimate unconditional probabilities and/ or conditional probabilities associated with the node's inputs and/ or outcomes. If there remain model nodes to analyze, the next node with available data may be selected at 213. In some embodiments, nodes may depend on other nodes (e.g., nodes in the model may be arranged as an acyclic directed graph) and goal probabilities associated with precedent nodes may be calculated
before analyzing dependent nodes. Accordingly, a node that relies on historical data and/ or precedent nodes for which goal probabilities have been estimated may be selected.;
The specification discloses systems providing interfaces to allow users to access systems (para 0073, para 0077, para 0081), various interfaces (para 0078, para 0082-0086, para 0088-0089, para 0091-0093, para 0096-0097, para 0099, para 0103, para 0114, para 0118, para 0122), however none of the interfaces listed for use in the specification focus on a variable node acyclic directed graph user interface. The limitations only require the claimed “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” to obtain data and update data or nodes without any details as to technical implementation, thereby functioning as any generic interface without significantly more. Accordingly, the claimed “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” is merely applied to perform well understood interface functions of obtaining and updating data.
With respect to the term “automatic”, the claim limitations do not recite the term. Applicant’s argument is moot.
Claim Interpretation
In the remarks applicant disagrees with the interpretation that with respect to the limitation "nodes are root nodes that do not depend upon other nodes" as being a display of a node graph on an interface where the node graph language does not further limit the underlying technology of the generic interface but instead merely describes the data that the interface obtains and updates. The applicant argues that the claim interpretation mischaracterizes the specification, claim limitations and the law with respect to the node graph language of the claim limitations. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of applicant's argument. The specification discloses "nodes in the model may be arranged as an acyclic directed graph" (para 0036) and discloses (para 0096) interface facilitate access, capabilities, operations and display of data, the claim limitations do not recite the interface displaying nodes in a model as an acyclic directed graph. Instead the interface as claimed merely obtains inputted data and updates inputted data selections, recalculated dependent nodes, recalculated probabilities and determined output values associated with results, facilitates trading action. The specification (para 0073) discloses the "system includes output mechanisms through which data may pass into and out of a computer. " and discloses (para 0082) interfaces include but not limited to "output interfaces (I/O)" (para 0084, see also para 0085) network interface may be regarded as a specialized form of an input output interface". The specification discloses para 0097 "The user interface may allow for the display, execution, interaction, manipulation, and/ or operation of program components and/ or system facilities through textual and/ or graphical facilities. The user interface provides a facility through which users may affect, interact, and/ or operate a computer system. A user interface may communicate to and/ or with other components in a component collection, including itself, and/ or facilities of the like. Most frequently, the user interface communicates with operating systems, other program components, and/ or the like. The user interface may contain, communicate, generate, obtain, and/ or provide program component, system, user, and/ or data communications, requests, and/ or responses" which are ordinary operations of user interface technology. The examiner maintains that the specification does not disclose or have possession of a special machine variable node rootless graph interface instead the specification has possession of an interface that is capable of displaying a graphical data which include data in graphical format. The examiner maintains the claims are not claiming a special purpose interface but instead describing the data the interface was obtaining and updating. The examiner maintains that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in light of the specification" that the language "variable node rootless graph user interface" now amended to be "variable node acyclic directed graph user interface" is merely a descriptor of a generic user interface capable of updating data, obtaining data and although not claimed displaying a data graph. The descriptor of the user interface in the claims do not have any special function or special purpose beyond the ordinary functions of user interface technology of displaying data. The recitation of the language "obtain via variable node acyclic directed graph" is a descriptor of the user interface, the claimed functions of the user interface are basic functions known in the art "obtain input date", "obtained expert user input data selections" and "update the variable node acyclic directed graph with any of "input data selections, recalculated determined dependent nodes, recalculated probabilities, determined output values and therefore merely performs the function of obtaining that is inputted and updating inputs, recalculated determined nodes, recalculated probabilities, determined output values, the description/label (variable node acyclic directed graph) applied by the user interface does not limit any of the performed functions or change the way ordinary interfaces. Accordingly, in light of the specification, the user interface claimed is a generic user interface. The descriptor "variable node acyclic directed graph interface' merely labels the interface without details of technical implementation other than the high level function of obtaining data. The claim limitations, therefore, recite user interface that performs the ordinary functions of obtaining inputted data and updates data elements. The descriptor does not further limit or change the operation of the user interface into a specific purpose interface. The claim limitations do not recite the use of the “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” beyond the ordinary capacity of a generic interface. .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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.
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(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: security analysis component in claim 37.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 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.
Claim limitation security analysis means has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recited structure (e.g. security component) makes it unclear as to whether the structure, material or acts precludes 112 (f). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 37-45 recite structure, material or acts in-conjunction with the “means” limitation. Claim 37 recites “means to process processor-executable instructions from the component collection, storage of the component collection structured with processor executable instructions”.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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 1-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-18:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include an apparatus, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such apparatus fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an analyzing apparatus to 1) obtain a security analysis request, 2) retrieve parameters of data structure associated with a security, 3) obtain input data selections, 4) determine modified nodes where the nodes are modified by inputted data, 5) determine dependent nodes, 6) recalculate probabilities, 7) determine an output value, 8) facilitate a trade and 9) update...data, recalculated probabilities and determined outputs, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the facilitating a trade by determining patterns in a rule, recalculating and outputting values but for the recitation of generic computer. That is, other than reciting “an apparatus comprising a memory, a security analysis component and processor executing instructions,” and a “user interface” to obtain/update data and processor for performing the abstract idea, nothing in the claim element precludes the focus of the invention from using computer technology as a tool in order to determine patterns, recalculate probabilities to determine a value to perform a transaction.
The specification titled “probabilistic Analysis Trading platform Apparatuses, Methods and System makes clear that the focus of the invention of the analysis of trading data where data is obtained, analyzed for probabilities and the result of the analysis is outputted (para 0019). This concept is enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract the sub-category of sales activities and fundamental economic practices found in the category of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a processor executing instructions to (1) obtain analysis request-insignificant extra solution activity, (2) retrieve parameters of a security analysis data structure-insignificant extra solution activity, (3) obtain input data selections – insignificant extra solution activity (4) determine modified nodes where the nodes are modified by inputted data - common practice in modelling business data analysis (5) determine dependent nodes- common practice in modelling business data analysis (6) recalculate probabilities-directed toward data analysis and calculation of probabilities- a common business practice (7) determine an output value – directed toward mathematical result and (8) facilitate a trade – a common business practice 9) update...data, recalculated probabilities and determined outputs-common business practice. The processing functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The random variables are no more than the data content inputted. The claim does not encompass any technical process related to randomization that could be considered as significantly more. When considered as a combination of parts the combination of limitations 1-3 is directed toward data collection for analysis – an insignificant extra solution activity. The combination of limitations 4-6 are directed toward determining probability nodes with data modified by inputted data, data analysis and the calculation of probabilities based on the data collected in limitations 1-3- directed toward data analysis. The combination of limitations 1-7 is directed toward collecting data, analyzing the data and calculating probabilities and outputting the results (see Electric Power Group). The combination of limitations 1-7 and 8-9 is directed toward facilitating a trade based on the value outputted and updating data, calculations and outputting the result- a common business practice. The security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model), recites high level functions of determining modified nodes of the data structure (expert model) modified by data inputted and determine dependent nodes are not directed toward improvement of learning technology or a particular technological technique. The determining functions are directed toward assisting in determination and recalculation of relationships. The technology recited to apply the abstract idea includes processors executing instructions to obtain analysis request, retrieve parameters for data analysis, determine modified nodes where probabilities have been modified based on inputted data obtained, determine dependent nodes for each modified node, recalculate probabilities, determine output values associated with results, facilitate a trading action based on output values and update user interface with input data selections, recalculated dependent nodes, recalculated probabilities, determined output values and facilitated trading action. The recited functions of the processor are operating in their ordinary capacity in order to apply the abstract idea. None of the functions claimed by the processor is directed toward an improvement to technology, provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology, specific machine or a process that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea integrating the abstract idea into a practical solution. With respect to the user interface (variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface) the interface is applied to obtain input data which is merely used to apply a tool to collect data being implemented in its ordinary capacity.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The specification does not disclose or have possession of a special purpose, specific variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, but does have possession of analyzing dependent and independent nodes (para 0036-0047, para 0044 and para 0064) and has possession of generic GUI capable of inputting and outputting data where such data outputted could include displaying independent nodes (see FIG. 7-11; para 0077-0078, para 0082 including conventional input/output interfaces). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation “obtain, via variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, expert input data…” and “update the variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface with any of “modified …input data selections”, “recalculated determined dependent nodes for each modified nodes”, determined output value, the facilitated trading” is directed toward applying a generic interface for the use of obtaining or output data. The recitation of obtaining data or updating by applying a generic user interface operating in its ordinary capacity without any details of changing any underlying technology is mere application of known technology. The “obtain” and “update” limitations are high level function and an insignificant extra solution activity directed toward outcomes without any details as to the technical implementation of the “obtain” function. The examiner maintains that the claimed limitations under 101, is abstract as the “variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface” is merely applied as a generic interface tool to gather and output data and therefore, is not sufficient under step 2A prong 1 and 2.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to facilitate a trade by determining modified nodes of a security analysis data structure, determine dependent nodes, recalculate probabilities, determine output value. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a technical process imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any particular technical process, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The processor functions recited (obtain, retrieve, determine, recalculate and facilitate) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the data analysis operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limits on the judicial exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include an apparatus comprising a generic memory, component collection in the memory, a security analysis component and processor issues instructions to perform instructions and interface-is purely functional and generic. Nearly every apparatus for modeling data for facilitating trade processor is capable of performing the functions (obtain request, retrieve parameters, obtain, input data, determine nodes of a model, determine dependent nodes, recalculate, determine output value, facilitate trade). A user interface (variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface) is recited to obtain input data. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the apparatus claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the modelling security data in a neural network in order to calculate a value and facilitating a trade based on the output to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation data analysis via computers. The additional elements as discussed above with respect to use of a security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model) is utilized to analyze data, calculate values based on data collected and outputting the result for use in facilitating a transaction is analogous to Electric Power Group. The limitations do not to provide a unique or unconventional technological process to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a security analysis data structure amounts to no more than the use of neural modelling techniques to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using an apparatus processor to collect data, analyze data using neural network/node modelling at a high level, calculating and outputting the value and facilitating a transaction based on value results ----are some of the most basic functions of a modelling algorithm. The limitation “input data…selection of random variables”, viz. a description of data content for variables for calculation. No mathematical equation can be used, as a practical matter, without establishing and inputting values for the variables expressed therein. The input of values dictated by the formula has thus been viewed as a form of mathematical step. If the steps of gathering and inputting values were alone sufficient, every mathematical equation, formula, or algorithm having any practical use would be per se subject to patenting as a "process" under § 101. Consideration of whether the inputted values are random is not sufficient. If specific/random values for a mathematical calculation is enough to convert the disembodied ideas present in the formula into an embodiment of those ideas, or into an application of the formula, is foreclosed by the current state of the law.
The determination of nodes of security analysis data structure/record for probabilities and determining dependent nodes for each modified node have no effect upon the nodes themselves or neural network node capability or functions beyond their normal operational capacity and/or purpose. There are no recited steps for modification of nodes, rather the limitations are directed toward how the nodes are applied to analyze the data. All of these modelling functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they attempting to improve upon node modelling in any of these activities, but rather the intent is to confine the data analysis within a neural network node environment. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic node modelling functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions and the use of nodes for analysis, add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The functions of obtaining a security analysis, retrieve parameters and determine an output are no more than pre-solution and post-solution insignificant activities (see MPEP 2106.05 (d), (g);.
The specification does not disclose or have possession of a special purpose, specific variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, but does have possession of analyzing dependent and independent nodes (para 0036-0047, para 0044 and para 0064) and has possession of generic GUI capable of inputting and outputting data where such data outputted could include displaying independent nodes (see FIG. 7-11; para 0077-0078, para 0082 including conventional input/output interfaces). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation “obtain, via variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, expert input data…” and “update the variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface with any of “modified …input data selections”, “recalculated determined dependent nodes for each modified nodes”, determined output value, the facilitated trading” is directed toward applying a generic interface for the use of obtaining or output data. The recitation of obtaining data or updating by applying a generic user interface operating in its ordinary capacity without any details of changing any underlying technology is mere application of known technology. The “obtain” and “update” limitations are high level function and an insignificant extra solution activity directed toward outcomes without any details as to the technical implementation of the “obtain” function. The claim limitations recites “obtain, via variable node acyclic directed graph user interface, …input…”, “…input data selections obtained via the variable node acyclic directed graph interface” and “update the variable node acyclic directed graph user interface with any of …data selections…recalculated dependent nodes…recalculated probabilities….”. The specification nominally mentions the term “acyclic directed graph” which is not an interface and does not mention in the specification the operations of “acyclic directed interface”.
[0036] A determination may be made at 209 whether there remain model nodes to analyze. In one embodiment, each of the nodes in the model may be analyzed to estimate unconditional probabilities and/ or conditional probabilities associated with the node's inputs and/ or outcomes. If there remain model nodes to analyze, the next node with available data may be selected at 213. In some embodiments, nodes may depend on other nodes (e.g., nodes in the model may be arranged as an acyclic directed graph) and goal probabilities associated with precedent nodes may be calculated
before analyzing dependent nodes. Accordingly, a node that relies on historical data and/ or precedent nodes for which goal probabilities have been estimated may be selected.;
The specification discloses systems providing interfaces to allow users to access systems (para 0073, para 0077, para 0081), various interfaces (para 0078, para 0082-0086, para 0088-0089, para 0091-0093, para 0096-0097, para 0099, para 0103, para 0114, para 0118, para 0122), however none of the interfaces listed for use in the specification focus on a variable node acyclic directed graph user interface. The limitations only require the claimed “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” to obtain data and update data or nodes without any details as to technical implementation, thereby functioning as any generic interface without significantly more. Accordingly, the claimed “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” is merely applied to perform well understood interface functions of obtaining and updating data.
The examiner maintains that the claimed limitations under 101, is abstract as the “variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface” is merely applied as a generic interface tool to gather and output data and therefore, is not sufficient under step 2A prong 2B. The claimed functions similar to Electric Power Group, obtain/collect data, analyze data and outputs the result of the analysis. .
The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Insignificant Extra-solution activity further includes: Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
The functions of “determine modified nodes of the security analysis data structure, determine dependent nodes” are no more than the insignificant extra-solution activity of selection a particular source of data. (MPEP 2016.05 (g).
The function of recalculate probabilities is a well understood process of repetitive calculations.
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specification discloses a plurality of known and well understood interfaces- para 0073 lines 19, systems provide interfaces, interface bus (para 0077 lines 20, lines 3-4, para 0082 line 22, 27-28); various interfaces –( para 0078 lines 1); I/O interfaces (para 0081 lines 19, para 0082 lines 24), interface adapters conventionally connected (para 0082 lines 23, 27), storage interfaces, cryptographic processor interfaces and network interfaces (para 0082 lines 24-25); packet interface and system interface (para 0083 line 10, 12); touch interface, visual interface, multimedia interface, display interface, monitor with an interface and video interfaces (para 0085 lines 11-14, 20, 25); user interface (para 0091 line 1); gateway interface (para 0093 line 16); operation interface, conventional graphical user interfaces (para 0097 lines 26-28), web interface, interface libraries and interaction interface (para 0096 lines 7-8, 10, 13-14, 20-21); messaging interface (para 0099 line 9); API interfaces and remote application program interfaces (para 0122 line 24, 27)
The function of recalculate probabilities is a well understood process of repetitive calculations as per MPEP 2106.05 (d). .
The courts have described certain limitations as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Although there is no definitive text for determining whether a particular claim limitation is a mere field of use or an attempt to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. However, a common feature of many field of use limitations (as well as other types of non-meaningful claim limitations) is an absence of integration into the claim as a whole. The facilitation for trading is not integrated into the claim as a whole but rather do no more than to limit the abstract content use in a basic computer apparatus and therefore does not more that confine the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment.
The claimed functions as a combination do no more than collect information, analyze it and output the result in order to facilitate a trade.
Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
See also- US Pub No. 2015/0379427 A1 by Dirac et al; US Pub No. 2012/0082313 A1 by Diamant et al; US Pub No. 2012/0239598 A1 by Caseaval et al; US Pub No. 2005/0005266 A1 by Datig
With respect to “rootless nodes or rootless/acyclic graphs” CA 2823420 A1 by Ilyas et al-para 0006 wherein the prior art teaches relationship concept in network graph includes directed or undirected (i.e. rootless/acyclic) graph, para 0390 wherein the prior art teaches model as a graph using various parameters with graph corresponding to relationships among concepts may be directed or all of edges may be undirected, para 0525 wherein the prior art teaches there are two typical graph models that can be constructed as constructed on undirected or directed graphs . NPL article “The Cardinality of the Collection of Maximum Independent Sets of a Functional Graph” by Chang et al-(1996); see page 289-290; US Pub No. 2007/0208677 A1 by Goldberg et al- FIG. 10-11; para 0182-0183; US Pub No 2006/0106743 A1 by Horvitz-FIG. 18; para 0050; US Pub No. 2004/0260664 A1 by Thiesson et al- FIG. 7-9; para 0006, para 0010.
The claimed variable node acyclic directed graph is a generic interface and not a special purpose interface as the language “variable node acyclic directed graph” is a descriptor of the user interface performing interface functions of obtaining inputted data.
AND
Input Variable Selection in expert system based on hybrid Gamma Test-Least Square Support Vector Machine, ANFIS and ANN models By Akram Seifi et al; Knowledge Representation and Uncertainty processing in the Probabilistic Expert System by JIŘÍ GRIM ; The development of an expert system to predict virological response to HIV therapy as part of an online treatment support tool Revell, Andrew D et al.; Types of Expert System: Comparative Study by Viral Nagori et al
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-18 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claims 2 and 3 are directed toward determining data structure/record based on identifier- a common business practice. Dependent claims 4 and 5 are directed toward determine node for which probabilities are associated with input/output data. Modifying probabilities for securities is a common business practices in financial data analysis and well known technical process in neural network node data analysis. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward directed toward determining dependent node depends on modified node- directed toward analyzing organized data- well known and conventional technology. Dependent claims 8, 9 and 10 are directed toward calculating probabilities-directed toward mathematical calculations. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward output value associated with probability goals- a common business practice. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward nodes are leaf nodes- well known and conventional technology. Dependent claims 13, 14 and 15 are directed toward trading actions- a common business practice. Dependent 16 is directed toward node inputs based on financial analysis parameters- a common business practice in financial analysis. Dependent claim 17 is directed toward inputs based on trend analysis parameters- a common business practice in financial analysis. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward includes financial data analyzed- a common business practice in financial analysis. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-18 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 19-36:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transient physical medium storing instructions, as in independent Claim 19 and the dependent claims. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an analyzing processor executing instructions stored by the non-transient physical medium to perform the functions of 1) obtain a security analysis request, 2) retrieve parameters of data structure associated with a security, 3) obtain input data selection, 4) determine modified nodes where the nodes are modified by inputted data, 5) determine dependent nodes, 6) recalculate probabilities, 7) determine an output value 8) facilitating trading action and 9) update...data, recalculated probabilities and determined outputs which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the facilitating a trade by determining patterns in a rule, recalculating and outputting values but for the recitation of generic computer. That is, other than reciting “a processor readable…non-transient physical medium storing executable components,” a “user interface” to obtain/update data and processor for performing the abstract idea, nothing in the claim element precludes the focus of the invention from using computer technology as a tool in order to determine patterns, recalculate probabilities to determine a value to perform a transaction.
The specification titled “probabilistic Analysis Trading platform Apparatuses, Methods and System makes clear that the focus of the invention of the analysis of trading data where data is obtained, analyzed for probabilities and the result of the analysis is outputted (para 0019). This concept is enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract the sub-category of sales activities and fundamental economic practices found in the category of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a processor executing instructions to (1) obtain analysis request-insignificant extra solution of collecting data (2) retrieve parameters of a security analysis data structure insignificant extra solution of collecting data (3) obtain inputted data- insignificant extra solution of collecting data (4) determine modified nodes where the nodes are modified by inputted data - common practice in modelling business data analysis (5) determine dependent nodes- common practice in modelling business data analysis (6) recalculate probabilities-directed toward mathematical calculations (7) determine an output value- directed toward mathematical result and (8) facilitate a trade- a common business practice and 9) update...data, recalculated probabilities and determined outputs-common business practice. The processing functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The random variables are no more than the data content inputted. The claim does not encompass any technical process related to randomization that could be considered as significantly more. When considered as a combination of parts the combination of limitations 1-3 is directed toward data collection for analysis – an insignificant extra solution activity. The combination of limitations 4-6 are directed toward data analysis and the calculation of probabilities based on the data collected in limitations 1-3. The combination of limitations 1-7 is directed toward collecting data, analyzing the data and calculating probabilities and outputting the results (see Electric Power Group). The combination of limitations 1-7 and 8-9 is directed toward facilitating a trade based on the value outputted and updating data, calculations and outputting the result - a common business practice. The security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model), recites high level functions of determining modified nodes of the data structure (expert model) modified by data inputted and determine dependent nodes are not directed toward improvement of learning technology or a particular technological technique. The determining functions are directed toward assisting in determination and recalculation of relationships. The technology recited to apply the abstract idea includes processors executing instructions to obtain analysis request, retrieve parameters for data analysis, determine modified nodes where probabilities have been modified based on inputted data obtained, determine dependent nodes for each modified node, recalculate probabilities, determine output values associated with results, facilitate a trading action based on output values and update user interface with input data selections, recalculated dependent nodes, recalculated probabilities, determined output values and facilitated trading action. The recited functions of the processor are operating in their ordinary capacity in order to apply the abstract idea. None of the functions claimed by the processor is directed toward an improvement to technology, provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology, specific machine or a process that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea integrating the abstract idea into a practical solution. With respect to the user interface (variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface) the interface is applied to obtain input data which is merely used to apply a tool to collect data being implemented in its ordinary capacity.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The specification does not disclose or have possession of a special purpose, specific variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, but does have possession of analyzing dependent and independent nodes (para 0036-0047, para 0044 and para 0064) and has possession of generic GUI capable of inputting and outputting data where such data outputted could include displaying independent nodes (see FIG. 7-11; para 0077-0078, para 0082 including conventional input/output interfaces). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation “obtain, via variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, expert input data…” and “update the variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface with any of “modified …input data selections”, “recalculated determined dependent nodes for each modified nodes”, determined output value, the facilitated trading” is directed toward applying a generic interface for the use of obtaining or output data. The recitation of obtaining data or updating by applying a generic user interface operating in its ordinary capacity without any details of changing any underlying technology is mere application of known technology. The “obtain” and “update” limitations are high level function and an insignificant extra solution activity directed toward outcomes without any details as to the technical implementation of the “obtain” function. The examiner maintains that the claimed limitations under 101, is abstract as the “variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface” is merely applied as a generic interface tool to gather and output data and therefore, is not sufficient under step 2A prong 1 and 2.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to facilitate a trade by determining modified nodes of a security analysis data structure, determine dependent nodes, recalculate probabilities, determine output value. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a technical process imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any particular technical process, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The processor functions recited (obtain, retrieve, determine, recalculate and facilitate) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the data analysis operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limits on the judicial exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to use of a security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model) is utilized to analyze data and not to provide a unique or unconventional technological process to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a processor readable security non-transient physical medium storing processor executable components/instructions comprising a component collection/instructions stored in a medium, security analysis component/instructions stored in the medium including instructions -is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer component/instructions stored in a medium for modeling data for facilitating trade processor is capable of performing the functions ((obtain request, retrieve parameters, obtain, input data)-data collection, (determine nodes of a model, determine dependent nodes, recalculate, determine output value)-analyze and calculate values, facilitate trade). A user interface (variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface) is recited to obtain input data. As a result, none of the instructions recited by the medium claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the modelling security data using neural network nodes in order to calculate a value and facilitating a trade based on the output to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation data analysis via computers. The additional elements as discussed above with respect to use of a security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model) is utilized to analyze data, calculate values based on data collected and outputting the result for use in facilitating a transaction is analogous to Electric Power Group. The limitations do not to provide a unique or unconventional technological process to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a security analysis data structure amounts to no more than the use of neural modelling techniques to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a processor to collect data, analyze data using neural network/node modelling at a high level, calculating and outputting the value and facilitating a transaction based on value results ----are some of the most basic functions of a modelling algorithm. The limitation “input data…selection of random variables”, viz. a description of data content for variables for calculation. No mathematical equation can be used, as a practical matter, without establishing and inputting values for the variables expressed therein. The input of values dictated by the formula has thus been viewed as a form of mathematical step. If the steps of gathering and inputting values were alone sufficient, every mathematical equation, formula, or algorithm having any practical use would be per se subject to patenting as a "process" under § 101. Consideration of whether the inputted values are random is not sufficient. If specific/random values for a mathematical calculation is enough to convert the disembodied ideas present in the formula into an embodiment of those ideas, or into an application of the formula, is foreclosed by the current state of the law.
The determination of nodes of security analysis data structure/record for probabilities and determining dependent nodes for each modified node have no effect upon the nodes themselves or neural network node capability or functions beyond their normal operational capacity and/or purpose. There are no recited steps for modification of nodes, rather the limitations are directed toward how the nodes are applied to analyze the data. All of these modelling functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they attempting to improve upon node modelling in any of these activities, but rather the intent is to confine the data analysis within a neural network node environment. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic node modelling functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions and the use of nodes for analysis, add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
The additional element of using a security analysis data structure amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. Nearly every processor for modeling data for facilitating trade processor is capable of performing the functions (obtain request, retrieve parameters, obtain, input data, determine nodes of a model, determine dependent nodes, recalculate, determine output value, facilitate trade). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the modelling security data in a neural network in order to calculate a value and facilitating a trade based on the output to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation data analysis via computers.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The functions of obtaining a security analysis, retrieve parameters and determine an output are no more than pre-solution and post-solution insignificant activities (see MPEP 2106.05 (d), (g);.
The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Insignificant Extra-solution activity further includes: Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
The functions of “determine modified nodes of the security analysis data structure, determine dependent nodes” are no more than the insignificant extra-solution activity of selection a particular source of data. (MPEP 2016.05 (g).
The specification discloses a plurality of known and well understood interfaces- para 0073 lines 19, systems provide interfaces, interface bus (para 0077 lines 20, lines 3-4, para 0082 line 22, 27-28); various interfaces –( para 0078 lines 1); I/O interfaces (para 0081 lines 19, para 0082 lines 24), interface adapters conventionally connected (para 0082 lines 23, 27), storage interfaces, cryptographic processor interfaces and network interfaces (para 0082 lines 24-25); packet interface and system interface (para 0083 line 10, 12); touch interface, visual interface, multimedia interface, display interface, monitor with an interface and video interfaces (para 0085 lines 11-14, 20, 25); user interface (para 0091 line 1); gateway interface (para 0093 line 16); operation interface, conventional graphical user interfaces (para 0097 lines 26-28), web interface, interface libraries and interaction interface (para 0096 lines 7-8, 10, 13-14, 20-21); messaging interface (para 0099 line 9); API interfaces and remote application program interfaces (para 0122 line 24, 27)
The specification does not disclose or have possession of a special purpose, specific variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, but does have possession of analyzing dependent and independent nodes (para 0036-0047, para 0044 and para 0064) and has possession of generic GUI capable of inputting and outputting data where such data outputted could include displaying independent nodes (see FIG. 7-11; para 0077-0078, para 0082 including conventional input/output interfaces). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation “obtain, via variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, expert input data…” and “update the variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface with any of “modified …input data selections”, “recalculated determined dependent nodes for each modified nodes”, determined output value, the facilitated trading” is directed toward applying a generic interface for the use of obtaining or output data. The recitation of obtaining data or updating by applying a generic user interface operating in its ordinary capacity without any details of changing any underlying technology is mere application of known technology. The “obtain” and “update” limitations are high level function and an insignificant extra solution activity directed toward outcomes without any details as to the technical implementation of the “obtain” function. The examiner maintains that the claimed limitations under 101, is abstract as the “variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface” is merely applied as a generic interface tool to gather and output data and therefore, is not sufficient under step 2A prong 2B. The claimed functions similar to Electric Power Group, obtain/collect data, analyze data and outputs the result of the analysis. .
The function of recalculate probabilities is a well understood process of repetitive calculations.
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The function of recalculate probabilities is a well understood process of repetitive calculations as per MPEP 2106.05 (d). .
The courts have described certain limitations as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Although there is no definitive text for determining whether a particular claim limitation is a mere field of use or an attempt to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. However, a common feature of many field of use limitations (as well as other types of non-meaningful claim limitations) is an absence of integration into the claim as a whole. The facilitation for trading is not integrated into the claim as a whole but rather do no more than to limit the abstract content use in a basic computer processor and therefore does not more that confine the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment.
The claimed functions as a combination do no more than collect information, analyze it and output the result in order to facilitate a trade.
Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
US Pub No. 2015/0379427 A1 by Dirac et al; US Pub No. 2012/0082313 A1 by Diamant et al; US Pub No. 2012/0239598 A1 by Caseaval et al; US Pub No. 2005/0005266 A1 by Datig.
With respect to “rootless nodes or rootless/acyclic graphs” CA 28234020 A1 by Ilyas et al-para 0006 wherein the prior art teaches relationship concept in network graph includes directed or undirected (i.e. rootless/acyclic) graph, para 0390 wherein the prior art teaches model as a graph using various parameters with graph corresponding to relationships among concepts may be directed or all of edges may be undirected, para 0525 wherein the prior art teaches there are two typical graph models that can be constructed as constructed on undirected or directed graphs . NPL article “The Cardinality of the Collection of Maximum Independent Sets of a Functional Graph” by Chang et al-(1996); see page 289-290; US Pub No. 2007/0208677 A1 by Goldberg et al- FIG. 10-11; para 0182-0183; US Pub No 2006/0106743 A1 by Horvitz-FIG. 18; para 0050; US Pub No. 2004/0260664 A1 by Thiesson et al- FIG. 7-9; para 0006, para 0010.
The claimed variable node acyclic directed graph is a generic interface and not a special purpose interface as the language “variable node acyclic directed graph” is a descriptor of the user interface.
AND
Input Variable Selection in expert systems based on hybrid Gamma Test-Least Square Support Vector Machine, ANFIS and ANN models By Akram Seifi et al; Knowledge Representation and Uncertainty processing in the Probabilistic Expert System by JIŘÍ GRIM ; The development of an expert system to predict virological response to HIV therapy as part of an online treatment support tool Revell, Andrew D et al.; Types of Expert System: Comparative Study by Viral Nagori et al
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 20-36 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 19. Dependent claims 20 and 21 are directed toward determining security data structure/record associated with identifier. Dependent claims 22 and 23 directed toward determining node for probabilities associated with input- well known and conventional process in neural network nodal modelling for financial data analysis. Dependent claims 24 and 25 are directed toward determine dependent node depends directly/indirectly on node- routine conventional process in neural network node modelling and data analysis. Dependent claim 26, 27 and 28 are directed toward calculation of probabilities- mathematical calculating using financial data to determine probabilities- a common business practice in finance. Dependent claim 29 is directed toward output value as goal probabilities- a common business practice. Dependent claim 30 is directed toward node is a leaf node-routine and conventional element in node modelling. Dependent claims 31, 32 and 33 are directed toward trading actions- common business practice. Dependent claims 34 and 35 are directed toward node inputs content for analyzing financial data- a common business practice. Dependent claim 36 is directed toward security elements- a common business practice. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 19. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 20-36 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 37-54:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 37 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a system comprising a security analysis means to perform the functions of 1) obtain a security analysis request, 2) retrieve parameters of data structure associated with a security, 3) obtain input data, 4) determine modified nodes where the nodes are modified by inputted data, 5) determine dependent nodes, 6) recalculate probabilities, 7) determine an output value 8) facilitate a trade and 9) update...data, recalculated probabilities and determined outputs which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the facilitating a trade by determining patterns in a rule, recalculating and outputting values and implement, but for the recitation of generic computer elements. That is, other than reciting “processor implemented security analyzing system” comprising a security analysis component/instruction,” a “user interface” to obtain/update data and processor for performing the abstract idea, nothing in the claim element precludes the focus of the invention from using computer technology as a tool in order to determine patterns, recalculate probabilities to determine a value to perform a transaction.
The specification titled “probabilistic Analysis Trading platform Apparatuses, Methods and System makes clear that the focus of the invention of the analysis of trading data where data is obtained, analyzed for probabilities and the result of the analysis is outputted (para 0019). As the focus of the invention is to analyze collected data to output a result and perform a transaction based on the result. This concept is enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract the sub-category of sales activities and fundamental economic practices found in the category of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a security analysis means to (1) obtain analysis request – insignificant extra solution activity of collecting data (2) retrieve parameters of a security analysis data structure-– insignificant extra solution activity of collecting data (3) obtain input data-– insignificant extra solution activity of collecting data (4) determine modified nodes where the nodes are modified by inputted data - common practice in modelling business data analysis (5) determine dependent nodes - common practice in modelling business data analysis (6) recalculate probabilities- directed toward mathematical processes (7) determine an output value directed toward mathematical processes (8) facilitate a trade- common business practice and 9) update...data, recalculated probabilities and determined outputs- common business practice. The processing functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model), recites high level functions of determining modified nodes of the data structure (expert learning model) modified by data inputted and determine dependent nodes are not directed toward improvement of learning technology or a particular technological technique. Rather the determining functions are directed toward assisting in determination and recalculation of relationships. The random variables are no more than the data content inputted. The claim does not encompass any technical process related to randomization that could be considered as significantly more.
When considered as a combination of parts the combination of limitations 1-3 is directed toward data collection for analysis – an insignificant extra solution activity. The combination of limitations 4-6 are directed toward data analysis and the calculation of probabilities based on the data collected in limitations 1-3. The combination of limitations 1-7 is directed toward collecting data, analyzing the data and calculating probabilities and outputting the results (see Electric Power Group). The combination of limitations 1-7 and 8-9 is directed toward facilitating a trade based on the value outputted and updating data, calculations and outputting the result - a common business practice. The security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model), recites high level functions of determining modified nodes of the data structure (expert model) modified by data inputted and determine dependent nodes are not directed toward improvement of learning technology or a particular technological technique. The determining functions are directed toward assisting in determination and recalculation of relationships. The technology recited to apply the abstract idea includes processors executing instructions to obtain analysis request, retrieve parameters for data analysis, determine modified nodes where probabilities have been modified based on inputted data obtained, determine dependent nodes for each modified node, recalculate probabilities, determine output values associated with results, facilitate a trading action based on output values and update user interface with input data selections, recalculated dependent nodes, recalculated probabilities, determined output values and facilitated trading action. The recited functions of the processor are operating in their ordinary capacity in order to apply the abstract idea. None of the functions claimed by the processor is directed toward an improvement to technology, provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology, specific machine or a process that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea integrating the abstract idea into a practical solution. With respect to the user interface (variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface) the interface is applied to obtain input data which is merely used to apply a tool to collect data being implemented in its ordinary capacity.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The specification does not disclose or have possession of a special purpose, specific variable node rootless/acycli graph user interface, but does have possession of analyzing dependent and independent nodes (para 0036-0047, para 0044 and para 0064) and has possession of generic GUI capable of inputting and outputting data where such data outputted could include displaying independent nodes (see FIG. 7-11; para 0077-0078, para 0082 including conventional input/output interfaces). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation “obtain, via variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, expert input data…” and “update the variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface with any of “modified …input data selections”, “recalculated determined dependent nodes for each modified nodes”, determined output value, the facilitated trading” is directed toward applying a generic interface for the use of obtaining or output data. The recitation of obtaining data or updating by applying a generic user interface operating in its ordinary capacity without any details of changing any underlying technology is mere application of known technology. The “obtain” and “update” limitations are high level function and an insignificant extra solution activity directed toward outcomes without any details as to the technical implementation of the “obtain” function. The examiner maintains that the claimed limitations under 101, is abstract as the “variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface” is merely applied as a generic interface tool to gather and output data and therefore, is not sufficient under step 2A prong 1 and 2.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to facilitate a trade by determining modified nodes of a security analysis data structure, determine dependent nodes, recalculate probabilities, determine output value. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a technical process imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any particular technical process, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The processor functions recited (obtain, retrieve, determine, recalculate and facilitate) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the data analysis operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limits on the judicial exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the claims recite a security analysis component means. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a processor implement security analyzing system comprising security analysis component (i.e. instructions. The specification discloses in FIG. 1 a high level component and discloses in para 0030 the component to be a model. Therefore, as discussed above with respect to use of a security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model) is utilized to analyze data and not to provide a unique or unconventional technological process to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. A user interface (variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface) is recited to obtain input data. The additional element of a system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a processor to collect data, analyze data using neural network/node modelling at a high level, calculating and outputting the value and facilitating a transaction based on value results ----are some of the most basic functions of a modelling algorithm. The limitation “input data…selection of random variables”, viz. a description of data content for variables for calculation. No mathematical equation can be used, as a practical matter, without establishing and inputting values for the variables expressed therein. The input of values dictated by the formula has thus been viewed as a form of mathematical step. If the steps of gathering and inputting values were alone sufficient, every mathematical equation, formula, or algorithm having any practical use would be per se subject to patenting as a "process" under § 101. Consideration of whether the inputted values are random is not sufficient. If specific/random values for a mathematical calculation is enough to convert the disembodied ideas present in the formula into an embodiment of those ideas, or into an application of the formula, is foreclosed by the current state of the law.
The determination of nodes of security analysis data structure/record for probabilities and determining dependent nodes for each modified node have no effect upon the nodes themselves or neural network node capability or functions beyond their normal operational capacity and/or purpose. There are no recited steps for modification of nodes, rather the limitations are directed toward how the nodes are applied to analyze the data. All of these modelling functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they attempting to improve upon node modelling in any of these activities, but rather the intent is to confine the data analysis within a neural network node environment. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic node modelling functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions and the use of nodes for analysis, add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
The additional element of using a security analysis data structure amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. Nearly every processor for modeling data for facilitating trade processor is capable of performing the functions (obtain request, retrieve parameters, obtain, input data, determine nodes of a model, determine dependent nodes, recalculate, determine output value, facilitate trade). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the modelling security data in a neural network in order to calculate a value and facilitating a trade based on the output to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation data analysis via computers.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The functions of obtaining a security analysis, retrieve parameters and determine an output are no more than pre-solution and post-solution insignificant activities (see MPEP 2106.05 (d), (g);.
The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Insignificant Extra-solution activity further includes: Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
The functions of “determine modified nodes of the security analysis data structure, determine dependent nodes” are no more than the insignificant extra-solution activity of selection a particular source of data. (MPEP 2016.05 (g).
The specification discloses a plurality of known and well understood interfaces- para 0073 lines 19, systems provide interfaces, interface bus (para 0077 lines 20, lines 3-4, para 0082 line 22, 27-28); various interfaces –( para 0078 lines 1); I/O interfaces (para 0081 lines 19, para 0082 lines 24), interface adapters conventionally connected (para 0082 lines 23, 27), storage interfaces, cryptographic processor interfaces and network interfaces (para 0082 lines 24-25); packet interface and system interface (para 0083 line 10, 12); touch interface, visual interface, multimedia interface, display interface, monitor with an interface and video interfaces (para 0085 lines 11-14, 20, 25); user interface (para 0091 line 1); gateway interface (para 0093 line 16); operation interface, conventional graphical user interfaces (para 0097 lines 26-28), web interface, interface libraries and interaction interface (para 0096 lines 7-8, 10, 13-14, 20-21); messaging interface (para 0099 line 9); API interfaces and remote application program interfaces (para 0122 line 24, 27). The claim limitations recites “obtain, via variable node acyclic directed graph user interface, …input…”, “…input data selections obtained via the variable node acyclic directed graph interface” and “update the variable node acyclic directed graph user interface with any of …data selections…recalculated dependent nodes…recalculated probabilities….”. The specification nominally mentions the term “acyclic directed graph” which is not an interface and does not mention in the specification the operations of “acyclic directed interface”.
[0036] A determination may be made at 209 whether there remain model nodes to analyze. In one embodiment, each of the nodes in the model may be analyzed to estimate unconditional probabilities and/ or conditional probabilities associated with the node's inputs and/ or outcomes. If there remain model nodes to analyze, the next node with available data may be selected at 213. In some embodiments, nodes may depend on other nodes (e.g., nodes in the model may be arranged as an acyclic directed graph) and goal probabilities associated with precedent nodes may be calculated
before analyzing dependent nodes. Accordingly, a node that relies on historical data and/ or precedent nodes for which goal probabilities have been estimated may be selected.;
The specification discloses systems providing interfaces to allow users to access systems (para 0073, para 0077, para 0081), various interfaces (para 0078, para 0082-0086, para 0088-0089, para 0091-0093, para 0096-0097, para 0099, para 0103, para 0114, para 0118, para 0122), however none of the interfaces listed for use in the specification focus on a variable node acyclic directed graph user interface. The limitations only require the claimed “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” to obtain data and update data or nodes without any details as to technical implementation, thereby functioning as any generic interface without significantly more. Accordingly, the claimed “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” is merely applied to perform well understood interface functions of obtaining and updating data.
The specification does not disclose or have possession of a special purpose, specific variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, but does have possession of analyzing dependent and independent nodes (para 0036-0047, para 0044 and para 0064) and has possession of generic GUI capable of inputting and outputting data where such data outputted could include displaying independent nodes (see FIG. 7-11; para 0077-0078, para 0082 including conventional input/output interfaces). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation “obtain, via variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, expert input data…” and “update the variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface with any of “modified …input data selections”, “recalculated determined dependent nodes for each modified nodes”, determined output value, the facilitated trading” is directed toward applying a generic interface for the use of obtaining or output data. The recitation of obtaining data or updating by applying a generic user interface operating in its ordinary capacity without any details of changing any underlying technology is mere application of known technology. The “obtain” and “update” limitations are high level function and an insignificant extra solution activity directed toward outcomes without any details as to the technical implementation of the “obtain” function. The examiner maintains that the claimed limitations under 101, is abstract as the “variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface” is merely applied as a generic interface tool to gather and output data and therefore, is not sufficient under step 2A prong 2B. The claimed functions similar to Electric Power Group, obtain/collect data, analyze data and outputs the result of the analysis. .
The function of recalculate probabilities is a well understood process of repetitive calculations.
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The function of recalculate probabilities is a well understood process of repetitive calculations as per MPEP 2106.05 (d). The courts have described certain limitations as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Although there is no definitive text for determining whether a particular claim limitation is a mere field of use or an attempt to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. However, a common feature of many field of use limitations (as well as other types of non-meaningful claim limitations) is an absence of integration into the claim as a whole. The facilitation for trading is not integrated into the claim as a whole but rather do no more than to limit the abstract content use in a basic computer processor and therefore does not more that confine the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment.
The claimed functions as a combination do no more than collect information, analyze it and output the result in order to facilitate a trade.
Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
US Pub No. 2015/0379427 A1 by Dirac et al; US Pub No. 2012/0082313 A1 by Diamant et al; US Pub No. 2012/0239598 A1 by Caseaval et al; US Pub No. 2005/0005266 A1 by Datig.
With respect to “rootless nodes or rootless/acyclic graphs” CA 2823420 A1 by Ilyas et al-para 0006 wherein the prior art teaches relationship concept in network graph includes directed or undirected (i.e. rootless/acyclic) graph, para 0390 wherein the prior art teaches model as a graph using various parameters with graph corresponding to relationships among concepts may be directed or all of edges may be undirected, para 0525 wherein the prior art teaches there are two typical graph models that can be constructed as constructed on undirected or directed graphs . NPL article “The Cardinality of the Collection of Maximum Independent Sets of a Functional Graph” by Chang et al-(1996); see page 289-290; US Pub No. 2007/0208677 A1 by Goldberg et al- FIG. 10-11; para 0182-0183; US Pub No 2006/0106743 A1 by Horvitz-FIG. 18; para 0050; US Pub No. 2004/0260664 A1 by Thiesson et al- FIG. 7-9; para 0006, para 0010.
The claimed variable node acyclic directed graph is a generic interface and not a special purpose interface as the language “variable node acyclic directed graph” is a descriptor of the user interface.
AND
Input Variable Selection in expert systems based on hybrid Gamma Test-Least Square Support Vector Machine, ANFIS and ANN models By Akram Seifi et al; Knowledge Representation and Uncertainty processing in the Probabilistic Expert System by JIŘÍ GRIM ; The development of an expert system to predict virological response to HIV therapy as part of an online treatment support tool Revell, Andrew D et al.; Types of Expert System: Comparative Study by Viral Nagori et al
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 38-54 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 37. Dependent claims 38 and 39 are directed toward determining security based on identifiers- a common business practice. Dependent claims 40 and 41 are directed toward determine node for probabilities associated with input/outcomes- well known and conventional process in neural network nodal modelling for financial data analysis. Dependent claims 42 and 43 are directed determine dependent nodes depend directly/indirectly upon node routine conventional process in neural network node modelling and data analysis. Dependent claims 44, 45 and 46 are directed toward calculating financial related probabilities/values- mathematical processes and common business practice. Dependent claim 47 is directed toward output value as goal probabilities- mathematical concepts and common business practice. Dependent claim 48 is directed toward node is leaf node-routine and conventional elements of neural network nodes. Dependent claims 49, 50 and 51 are directed toward trade action- common business practice. Dependent claims 52 and 53 are directed toward financial input content- a common business practice. Dependent claim 54 is directed toward retrieving financial related data- a common business practice. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 37. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 38-54 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to Claims 55-72:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 55 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method using a processor executing a security analysis component instructions to perform the functions of 1) obtain a security analysis request, 2) retrieve parameters of data structure associated with a security, 3) obtain input data selection, 4) determine modified nodes where the nodes are modified by inputted data, 5) determine dependent nodes, 6) recalculate probabilities, 7) determine an output value 8) facilitate a trade and 9) update...data, recalculated probabilities and determined outputs which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the facilitating a trade by determining patterns in a rule, recalculating and outputting values but for the recitation of generic computer. That is, other than reciting “processor” and “security analysis component instructions” a “user interface” to obtain/update data and processor for performing the abstract idea, nothing in the claim element precludes the focus of the invention from using computer technology as a tool in order to determine patterns, recalculate probabilities to determine a value to perform a transaction.
The specification titled “probabilistic Analysis Trading platform Apparatuses, Methods and System makes clear that the focus of the invention of the analysis of trading data where data is obtained, analyzed for probabilities and the result of the analysis is outputted (para 0019). The functions performed “by the processor” is recited at a high level that merely automates the steps. This concept is enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract the sub-category of sales activities and fundamental economic practices found in the category of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a security analysis method to (1) obtain analysis request – insignificant extra solution activity of collecting data (2) retrieve parameters of a security analysis data structure-– insignificant extra solution activity of collecting data (3) obtain input data-– insignificant extra solution activity of collecting data (4) determine modified nodes where the nodes are modified by inputted data - common practice in modelling business data analysis (5) determine dependent nodes - common practice in modelling business data analysis (6) recalculate probabilities- directed toward mathematical processes (7) determine an output value directed toward mathematical processes (8) facilitate a trade- common business practice and 9) update...data, recalculated probabilities and determined outputs-common business practice. The processing functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model), recites high level functions of determining modified nodes of the data structure (expert learning model) modified by data inputted and determine dependent nodes are not directed toward improvement of learning technology or a particular technological technique. Rather the determining functions are directed toward assisting in determination and recalculation of relationships. The random variables are no more than the data content inputted. The claim does not encompass any technical process related to randomization that could be considered as significantly more.
When considered as a combination of parts the combination of limitations 1-3 is directed toward data collection for analysis – an insignificant extra solution activity. The combination of limitations 4-6 are directed toward data analysis and the calculation of probabilities based on the data collected in limitations 1-3. The combination of limitations 1-7 is directed toward collecting data, analyzing the data and calculating probabilities and outputting the results (see Electric Power Group). The combination of limitations 1-7 and 8-9 is directed toward facilitating a trade based on the value outputted and updating data, calculations and outputting the result - a common business practice. The security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model), recites high level functions of determining modified nodes of the data structure (expert model) modified by data inputted and determine dependent nodes are not directed toward improvement of learning technology or a particular technological technique. The determining functions are directed toward assisting in determination and recalculation of relationships. The technology recited to apply the abstract idea includes processors executing instructions to obtain analysis request, retrieve parameters for data analysis, determine modified nodes where probabilities have been modified based on inputted data obtained, determine dependent nodes for each modified node, recalculate probabilities, determine output values associated with results, facilitate a trading action based on output values and update user interface with input data selections, recalculated dependent nodes, recalculated probabilities, determined output values and facilitated trading action. The recited functions of the processor are operating in their ordinary capacity in order to apply the abstract idea. None of the functions claimed by the processor is directed toward an improvement to technology, provide a solution to a problem rooted in technology, specific machine or a process that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea integrating the abstract idea into a practical solution. With respect to the user interface (variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface) the interface is applied to obtain input data which is merely used to apply a tool to collect data being implemented in its ordinary capacity.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The specification does not disclose or have possession of a special purpose, specific variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, but does have possession of analyzing dependent and independent nodes (para 0036-0047, para 0044 and para 0064) and has possession of generic GUI capable of inputting and outputting data where such data outputted could include displaying independent nodes (see FIG. 7-11; para 0077-0078, para 0082 including conventional input/output interfaces). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation “obtain, via variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, expert input data…” and “update the variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface with any of “modified …input data selections”, “recalculated determined dependent nodes for each modified nodes”, determined output value, the facilitated trading” is directed toward applying a generic interface for the use of obtaining or output data. The recitation of obtaining data or updating by applying a generic user interface operating in its ordinary capacity without any details of changing any underlying technology is mere application of known technology. The “obtain” and “update” limitations are high level function and an insignificant extra solution activity directed toward outcomes without any details as to the technical implementation of the “obtain” function. The examiner maintains that the claimed limitations under 101, is abstract as the “variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface” is merely applied as a generic interface tool to gather and output data and therefore, is not sufficient under step 2A prong 1 and 2.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to facilitate a trade by determining modified nodes of a security analysis data structure, determine dependent nodes, recalculate probabilities, determine output value. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, a technical process imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea that could then be pointed to as being “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any particular technical process, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The processor functions recited (obtain, retrieve, determine, recalculate and facilitate) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the data analysis operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limits on the judicial exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract include a “processor” and “component instructions” –is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a processor and instructions. The specification discloses in FIG. 1 a high level component and discloses in para 0030 the component to be a model. Therefore, as discussed above with respect to use of a security analysis data structure (i.e. expert learning model) is utilized to analyze data and not to provide a unique or unconventional technological process to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. A user interface (variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface) is recited to obtain input data The additional element of a system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using processor to collect data, analyze data using neural network/node modelling at a high level, calculating and outputting the value and facilitating a transaction based on value results ----are some of the most basic functions of a modelling algorithm. The limitation “input data…selection of random variables”, viz. a description of data content for variables for calculation. No mathematical equation can be used, as a practical matter, without establishing and inputting values for the variables expressed therein. The input of values dictated by the formula has thus been viewed as a form of mathematical step. If the steps of gathering and inputting values were alone sufficient, every mathematical equation, formula, or algorithm having any practical use would be per se subject to patenting as a "process" under § 101. Consideration of whether the inputted values are random is not sufficient. If specific/random values for a mathematical calculation is enough to convert the disembodied ideas present in the formula into an embodiment of those ideas, or into an application of the formula, is foreclosed by the current state of the law.
The determination of nodes of security analysis data structure/record for probabilities and determining dependent nodes for each modified node have no effect upon the nodes themselves or neural network node capability or functions beyond their normal operational capacity and/or purpose. There are no recited steps for modification of nodes, rather the limitations are directed toward how the nodes are applied to analyze the data. All of these modelling functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they attempting to improve upon node modelling in any of these activities, but rather the intent is to confine the data analysis within a neural network node environment. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic node modelling functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions and the use of nodes for analysis, add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
The additional element of using a security analysis data structure amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. Nearly every processor for modeling data for facilitating trade processor is capable of performing the functions (obtain request, retrieve parameters, obtain, input data, determine nodes of a model, determine dependent nodes, recalculate, determine output value, facilitate trade). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the modelling security data in a neural network in order to calculate a value and facilitating a trade based on the output to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation data analysis via computers.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The functions of obtaining a security analysis, retrieve parameters and determine an output are no more than pre-solution and post-solution insignificant activities (see MPEP 2106.05 (d), (g).
The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Insignificant Extra-solution activity further includes: Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
The functions of “determine modified nodes of the security analysis data structure, determine dependent nodes” are no more than the insignificant extra-solution activity of selection a particular source of data. (MPEP 2016.05 (g).
The specification discloses a plurality of known and well understood interfaces- para 0073 lines 19, systems provide interfaces, interface bus (para 0077 lines 20, lines 3-4, para 0082 line 22, 27-28); various interfaces –( para 0078 lines 1); I/O interfaces (para 0081 lines 19, para 0082 lines 24), interface adapters conventionally connected (para 0082 lines 23, 27), storage interfaces, cryptographic processor interfaces and network interfaces (para 0082 lines 24-25); packet interface and system interface (para 0083 line 10, 12); touch interface, visual interface, multimedia interface, display interface, monitor with an interface and video interfaces (para 0085 lines 11-14, 20, 25); user interface (para 0091 line 1); gateway interface (para 0093 line 16); operation interface, conventional graphical user interfaces (para 0097 lines 26-28), web interface, interface libraries and interaction interface (para 0096 lines 7-8, 10, 13-14, 20-21); messaging interface (para 0099 line 9); API interfaces and remote application program interfaces (para 0122 line 24, 27)
The specification does not disclose or have possession of a special purpose, specific variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, but does have possession of analyzing dependent and independent nodes (para 0036-0047, para 0044 and para 0064) and has possession of generic GUI capable of inputting and outputting data where such data outputted could include displaying independent nodes (see FIG. 7-11; para 0077-0078, para 0082 including conventional input/output interfaces). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation “obtain, via variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface, expert input data…” and “update the variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface with any of “modified …input data selections”, “recalculated determined dependent nodes for each modified nodes”, determined output value, the facilitated trading” is directed toward applying a generic interface for the use of obtaining or output data. The recitation of obtaining data or updating by applying a generic user interface operating in its ordinary capacity without any details of changing any underlying technology is mere application of known technology. The “obtain” and “update” limitations are high level function and an insignificant extra solution activity directed toward outcomes without any details as to the technical implementation of the “obtain” function. The examiner maintains that the claimed limitations under 101, is abstract as the “variable node rootless/acyclic graph user interface” is merely applied as a generic interface tool to gather and output data and therefore, is not sufficient under step 2A prong 2B. The claimed functions similar to Electric Power Group, obtain/collect data, analyze data and outputs the result of the analysis. .
The function of recalculate probabilities is a well understood process of repetitive calculations.
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The function of recalculate probabilities is a well understood process of repetitive calculations as per MPEP 2106.05 (d). .
The courts have described certain limitations as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Although there is no definitive text for determining whether a particular claim limitation is a mere field of use or an attempt to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. However, a common feature of many field of use limitations (as well as other types of non-meaningful claim limitations) is an absence of integration into the claim as a whole. The facilitation for trading is not integrated into the claim as a whole but rather do no more than to limit the abstract content use in a basic computer processor and therefore does not more that confine the use of the abstract idea in a particular environment.
The claimed functions as a combination do no more than collect information, analyze it and output the result in order to facilitate a trade.
Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
US Pub No. 2015/0379427 A1 by Dirac et al; US Pub No. 2012/0082313 A1 by Diamant et al; US Pub No. 2012/0239598 A1 by Caseaval et al; US Pub No. 2005/0005266 A1 by Datig.
With respect to “rootless nodes or rootless/acyclic graphs” CA 28234020 A1 by Ilyas et al-para 0006 wherein the prior art teaches relationship concept in network graph includes directed or undirected (i.e. rootless/acyclic) graph, para 0390 wherein the prior art teaches model as a graph using various parameters with graph corresponding to relationships among concepts may be directed or all of edges may be undirected, para 0525 wherein the prior art teaches there are two typical graph models that can be constructed as constructed on undirected or directed graphs . NPL article “The Cardinality of the Collection of Maximum Independent Sets of a Functional Graph” by Chang et al-(1996); see page 289-290; US Pub No. 2007/0208677 A1 by Goldberg et al- FIG. 10-11; para 0182-0183; US Pub No 2006/0106743 A1 by Horvitz-FIG. 18; para 0050; US Pub No. 2004/0260664 A1 by Thiesson et al- FIG. 7-9; para 0006, para 0010.
The claimed variable node acyclic directed graph is a generic interface and not a special purpose interface as the language “variable node acyclic directed graph” is a descriptor of the user interface.
AND
Input Variable Selection in expert systems based on hybrid Gamma Test-Least Square Support Vector Machine, ANFIS and ANN models By Akram Seifi et al; Knowledge Representation and Uncertainty processing in the Probabilistic Expert System by JIŘÍ GRIM ; The development of an expert system to predict virological response to HIV therapy as part of an online treatment support tool Revell, Andrew D et al.; Types of Expert System: Comparative Study by Viral Nagori et al
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 56-72 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 55. Dependent claims 56 and 57 are directed toward determining security based on identifiers- a common business practice. Dependent claims 58 and 59 are directed toward determine node for probabilities associated with input/outcomes- well-known and conventional process in neural network nodal modelling for financial data analysis. Dependent claims 60 and 61 are directed determine dependent nodes depend directly/indirectly upon node routine conventional process in neural network node modelling and data analysis. Dependent claims 62, 63 and 64 are directed toward calculating financial related probabilities/values- mathematical processes and common business practice. Dependent claim 65 is directed toward output value as goal probabilities- mathematical concepts and common business practice. Dependent claim 66 is directed toward node is leaf node-routine and conventional elements of neural network nodes. Dependent claims 67, 68 and 69 are directed toward trade action- common business practice. Dependent claims 70 and 71 are directed toward financial input content- a common business practice. Dependent claim 72 is directed toward retrieving financial related data- a common business practice. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 55. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 56-72 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-72 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In reference to Claims 1-72:
Independent claim 1, 19, 37 and 55 recite the limitations “via variable node acyclic directed graph user interface, expert input data selections” and “update the variable node acyclic directed graph user interface with any of: the modified expert input data selections” which is new matter. The original presentation of the written description does not possess a “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface”.
The original written description has possession of with respect to “an acyclic directed graph”:
“nodes may depend on other nodes (e.g. ,nodes in the model may be arranged as an acyclic directed graph)”
With respect to different interfaces for obtaining and updating data, the specification has possession of:
“These information technology systems provide interfaces that allow users to access and operate various system components” (para 0074);
“computer systemization 1202 may comprise a clock 1230, central processing unit 18 ("CPU(s)" and/or "processor(s)" (these terms are used interchangeable throughout the disclosure unless noted to the contrary)) … and/ or an interface bus 1207…may be connected as either internal and/ or external peripheral devices 1212 via the interface “4 bus I/0 1208…. and/or directly via the interface bus 1207” ,…”(para 0077);
“Such instruction passing facilitates communication within the PATP controller and beyond through various interfaces…”(para 0078);
“…In an alternative embodiment, an outside power source 1286 is provided through a connection across the I/O 1208 interface….” (para 0081); “Interface bus(ses) 1207 may accept, connect, and/ or communicate to a number of interface adapters, conventionally although not necessarily in the form of adapter cards, such as but not limited to: input output interfaces (I/0), storage interfaces 1209, network interfaces 1210, and/ or the like. Optionally, cryptographic processor interfaces 1227 similarly may be connected to the interface bus. The interface bus provides for the communications of interface adapters with one another as well as with other components of the computer systemization. Interface adapters conventionally connect to the interface bus via a slot architecture.…(0082);
Storage interfaces 1209 may accept, communicate, and/ or connect to a number of 8 storage devices such as, but not limited to: storage devices 1214, removable disc devices, and/ or the like. Storage interfaces may employ connection protocols…(0083)’
Network interfaces 1210 may accept, communicate, and/or connect to a communications network 1213. Through a communications network 1213, the PATP controller is accessible through remote clients 1233b (e.g., computers with web browsers) by users 1233a. Network interfaces may employ connection protocols…For example, multiple network 4 interfaces may be employed to allow for the communication over broadcast, multicast, and/ or unicast networks. (0084)’ Input Output interfaces (I/O) 1208 may accept, communicate, and/or connect to user, peripheral devices…The video interface composites information generated by a computer systemization and generates video signals based on the composited information in a video memory frame. …(para 0085);
The memory 1229 may contain a collection of program and/ or database components and/or data such as, but not limited to: operating system component(s) 1215 (operating 1 system); information server component(s) 1216 (information server); user interface 2 component(s) 1217 (user interface)… (para 0091);
The operating system component 1215 is an executable program component facilitating the operation of the PATP controller. Typically, the operating system facilitates access of I/ 0, network interfaces…Most frequently, the operating system communicates with other program components, user interfaces, and/ or the like …(0092);
An information server component 1216 is a stored program component that is executed by a CPU. The information server may be a conventional Internet information server such as, … The information server may allow for the execution of program components through facilities such as Active Server Page (ASP), ActiveX, (ANSI) (Objective-) C (++), C# and/or .NET, Common Gateway Interface (CGI)… Most frequently, the information server communicates with the PATP database 1219, operating systems, other program components, user interfaces, Web browsers, and/ or the like. (0093);
A user interface component 1217 is a stored program component that is executed by a CPU. The user interface may be a conventional graphic user interface as provided by, with, and/ or atop operating systems and/ or operating environments such as already discussed. The user interface may allow for the display, execution, interaction, manipulation, and/ or operation of program components and/ or system facilities through textual and/ or graphical facilities. The user interface provides a facility through which users may affect, interact, and/ or operate a computer system. A user interface may communicate to and/ or with other components in a component collection, including itself, and/ or facilities of the like. Most frequently, the user interface communicates with operating systems, other program components, and/ or the like. The user interface may contain, communicate, generate, obtain, and/ or provide program component, system, user, and/ or data communications, requests, and/ or responses..”(0097).
See also para 0103, 0114, 0118, 0122.
However there is no support or possession of a “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” performing the operations of “obtain” or “update” or data obtained via “variable node acyclic directed graph user interface” modified. Accordingly the claimed limitations include new matter. Dependent claims 2-18 depend upon claim 1, dependent claims 20-36 depend upon claim 19, dependent claims 38-54 depend upon claim 37 and dependent claims 56-72 depend upon claim 55 respectively and contain the same deficiencies of the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-72 encompass new matter and are rejected under 35 112(a) .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2015/0199613 A1 by Ruiz et al-para 0038, para 0041, para 0044-0045, US Patent No. 5,784,557 A by Oprescu
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 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
/CHRISTINE M Tran/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights