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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to response filed 24 July 2025.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-27 are pending. Claims 1, 11, 21 are independent.
It is noted that although claim 21 is listed as “Previously Amended”, nevertheless an amendment to said claim is present. It appears that the instant amendment to claim 21 matches the amendment filed 17 July, 2024.
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 1-2, 5-12, and 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-27 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 22-23 are drawn to non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 11-12,15-20, and 24-25 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 21 and 26-27 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Regarding Claim 1,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple abstract ideas, as explained below. The claim recites:
"generating a topological representation using the features of the received data set and topological data analysis, the topological representation being generated using at least one metric-lens combination of a subset of metric-lens combinations, the topological representation including a plurality of nodes, each of the nodes having one or more data points from the data set as members, at least two nodes of the plurality of nodes being connected by an edge if the at least two nodes share at least one data point from the data set as members, each of the one or more data points from the data set being identified by a date, each of the one or more data points including the features indicating a plurality of conditions associated with that date" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could perform a topological data analysis and generate a topological representation based on the nodes of a data set.
"determining distances between the new data point and at least some of the one or more data points from the data set based on features of the new data point and the features of the at least some of the one or more data points" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could calculate the distances between data points.
"locating the new data point in a location relative to one or more of the nodes in the topological representation using the distances between the new data point and the at least some of the one or more data points from the data set" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could observe the distance between data points and determine which cluster of points are closest.
"identifying a subset of the data points closest to the location of the new data point based on a proximity value, the proximity value being based the determined distances, a number of data points of the subset of the data points being limited based on the proximity value, the subset of the data points closest to the location of the new data point including at least one similar condition of the plurality of conditions" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could observe distances between data points and cluster them based on similarities and distances.
"comparing the features of the subset of the data points to at least some of the features of the new data point to identify a market regime associated with the new data point, the market regime including multiple conditions that match the new data point features, the conditions encapsulating financial market behavior, the market regime indicating a set of financial market and economic factors of at least most of the features of the subset of the data points as influencing factors of data point factors of the new data point, one or more asset prices of the data points being at least one of the influencing factors based on the market regime, one or more asset returns of the data points being at least another of the influencing factors based on the market regime, the market regime being one of a plurality of different market regimes that indicate different sets of financial market and economic factors, each market regime indicating different sets of financial market and economic factors from other market regimes of the plurality of market regimes" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could features of data points for clustering similar subsets of data points.
"determining directional signals of the influencing factors based on the market regime to determine a degree of impact on the data point factors of the new data point, the directional signals including at least one of an increase or decrease of the one or more asset prices and an increase or decrease of the one or more asset returns over one or more predetermined periods of time" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could observe how factors affect asset prices and assign directional signals to those factors.
"generating a forecast for the new date associated with the new data point, the forecast associating influencing factors associated with the subset of the data points and the directional signals with the new data point for predicting future asset returns of one or more assets associated with the new data point" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could forecast how new data with new factors will affect asset prices and returns.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
"receiving a data set, the data set including financial market information and economic information as features of data points in the data set, the financial market information including asset returns, liquidity, and asset prices within some data points, the economic information including Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates, interest rates, and inflation data within some data points" - This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [(see MPEP §2106.05(g)].
"receiving a new data point, the new data point being associated with a new date" - This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [(see MPEP §2106.05(g)].
Accordingly, the claims do not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of "receiving a data set" and "receiving a new data point" amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
"wherein the topological representation is a visualization depicting the plurality of nodes and the edge" - This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [(see MPEP §2106.05(g)].
Accordingly, the claims do not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of "by a machine learning model" amounts to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of "wherein the topological representation is a visualization depicting the plurality of nodes and the edge" amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Additionally, the claim recites the abstract ideas:
"wherein the forecast predicts an outcome associated with information regarding the new data point when the at least one similar condition of the plurality of conditions recurs" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could make a forecast based on recurring conditions of new data.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Additionally, the claim recites the abstract ideas:
"wherein the distances between the new data point and the at least some of the one or more data points from the data set is based on a metric from the at least one metric-lens combination" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could calculate distances between points based on the given metric.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Additionally, the claim recites the abstract ideas:
"wherein the distances between the new data point and the at least some of the one or more data points from the data set is based on a graphical distance of the topological representation" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could calculate the distances between data points based on graphical distance.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Additionally, the claim recites the abstract ideas:
"wherein a number of the subset of the data points closest to the new data point is based on a proximity value" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could determine the proximity of data points to each other to group them those points into a subset.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 8, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
"wherein the proximity value is received from a digital device" - This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [(see MPEP §2106.05(g)].
Accordingly, the claims do not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of "wherein the proximity value is received from a digital device" amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Additionally, the claim recites the abstract ideas:
"wherein information associated with the new data point and the number of the subset of the data points closest to the new data point is based on a proximity value is analyzed using statistical measures to determine correlations" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. A human could use statistical measures to determine correlations between data points to create a subset based on the proximity value.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
"generating a liquidity forecasting model for the new date associated with the new data point based on the dates associated with each data point of the subset of the data points closest to the location of the new data point" - The additional element of "liquidity forecasting model" as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component [see MPEP §2106.05(f)].
Accordingly, the claims do not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of "generating a liquidity forecasting model" amounts to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 23,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 22, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Additionally, the claim recites the abstract ideas:
"forecasts cost savings according to
PNG
media_image1.png
28
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,where X is a total order size, K ranges from 0 to N intraday periods, Vk is a voLume percentage at a time interval, and Pk is a price at each time interval" - These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mathematical concept because they recite mathematical calculations.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
"liquidity forecasting model" - The additional element of "machine learning model" as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component [see MPEP §2106.05(f)].
Accordingly, the claims do not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of "liquidity forecasting model" amounts to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 11-12, 15-20, and 24-25,
Claims 11-12, 15-20, and 24-25 recite analogous limitations to claims 1-2, 5-10, and 22-23 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims 1-2, 5-10, and 22-23.
Regarding Claims 21 and 26-27,
Claims 21 and 26-27 recite analogous limitations to claims 1 and 22-23 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims 1 and 22-23.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 July, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-13 of the response that the instant claims are an improvement over existing technology, and therefore, is a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed improvement is not a technical improvement, the claims, instead recite improvements to be an abstract idea, inasmuch as the claimed improvement is nothing more than a mental process with the aid of pen and paper. An improvement that is an abstract idea is not a technical improvement, and therefore is not patent eligible.
Applicant argues on pages 14-16 of the response that the claims do not recite an abstract idea and that the claimed limitations cannot be performed mentally. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not appear to provide any support or analysis as to how the instant claims require specific technical functionality that cannot be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper. It is the examiner’s opinion that the claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea, as demonstrated in the rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM BASHORE whose telephone number is (571)272-4088. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 9am - 6:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM BASHORE can be reached at (571)272-4088. 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.
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174