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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendments filed on 06/04/2026 has been entered. The status of the claims is as follow:
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 7-11, 17 and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
In reference to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a):
In view of Applicant’s amendments filed on 06/04/2026, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(a) for new matter is withdrawn. The amendments address the previously identified issue by removing the unsupported limitations. Accordingly, the pending claims are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) on this basis.
In reference to the rejections under 35 USC 101:
Argument:
Applicant argues that the 101 rejection should be withdrawn because claims
1-20 are not merely directed to an abstract idea, but recite a practical technological improvements. Applicant contends that claim 1 recites a hybrid classical quantum system where a quantum device solves a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem to obtain optimal trading trajectories, and those solutions are then used by a computer device to train machine learning algorithm more efficiently. Applicant asserts that this will help reduce processing time and computational cost, integrate any mathematical concepts into a practical application.
Response:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully notes that the claim recites quantum-computing and ML components at a high level of generality using mathematical optimization and machine learning to make a financial/investment recommendation. The combination may be useful but the ordered arrangement does not appear to add a technological improvement or unconventional technical implementation beyond the abstract financial/mathematical process. Some suggested areas that could lead to an improvement would be for example reciting a specific quantum/classical interface protocol, a specific data encoding into quantum states, a specific annealing schedule, a specific qubit topology, a specific measurement technique, a specific error correction mechanism, or a specific technical improvement in ML training or inference. In its current form the claim does not recite significantly more because the ML algorithm applied to the quantum device is invoked merely as a tool to perform the mathematical optimization. Therefore, the additional elements individually and in combination do not appear to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In reference to the rejections under 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/04/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 - Abstract Ideas
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 – Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? – Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas:
providing a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem defined by an equation with a cost function for optimization of trading trajectories of an asset portfolio – This limitation is directed to a mathematical concept (mathematical formulas or equations [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.]).
solving the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the first period of time with [[the]] a quantum device, thereby obtaining optimal trading trajectories for the first period of time– This limitation is directed to a mathematical concept (mathematical formulas or equations [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.]).
providing a recommended composition of an asset portfolio based on a set of inputs - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
digitally providing – This limitation is directed to a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer [See MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
by at least one computing device This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
digitally introducing – This limitation is directed to a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer [See MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
introducing a first set of data into the problem, the first set of data comprising historical financial data for a first period of time, the historical financial data at least comprising prices of considered assets – This limitation is directed to is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
digitally providing a quantum or classical machine learning algorithm that provides a recommended composition of an asset portfolio based on a set of inputs This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
digitally training the machine learning algorithm by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by the quantum device for the first period of time and minimizing a predetermined error function for each time unit of a first period of time for which there is historical financial data in the first set of data – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
introducing a second set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the second set of data comprising financial data for a second period of time that is posterior to the first period of time, the financial data at least comprising prices of the considered assets – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
providing a recommended portfolio composition for the second period of time by running the trained machine learning algorithm with the second set of data introduced therein – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
digitally providing – This limitation is directed to a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer [See MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
by at least one computing device This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
digitally introducing – This limitation is directed to a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer [See MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
introducing a first set of data into the problem, the first set of data comprising historical financial data for a first period of time, the historical financial data at least comprising prices of considered assets – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
digitally providing a quantum or classical machine learning algorithm that provides a recommended composition of an asset portfolio based on a set of inputs This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2))
digitally training the machine learning algorithm by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by the quantum device for the first period of time and minimizing a predetermined error function for each time unit of a first period of time for which there is historical financial data in the first set of data – This limitation is directed to training a machine learning algorithm by using an input data set and minimizing an error function, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Camacho et al., (US PGPUB No US2007/0042718 A1) (“In FIG. 6 the training model of a generic neural network (601) is described. To be able to carry out the adjustment of the internal parameters, weightings and offsets of the various neurons which constitute the neural network (500, 601), it is necessary to have an input data set (602) and the targets (603)
which the network has to attain for said inputs. There are well known algorithms which permit the network to be trained minimizing the error (605) between the output values (604) and the targets (603) which a comparator (606) provides.” [0091]) and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
introducing a second set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the second set of data comprising financial data for a second period of time that is posterior to the first period of time, the financial data at least comprising prices of the considered assets – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
providing a recommended portfolio composition for the second period of time by running the trained machine learning algorithm with the second set of data introduced therein – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 2,
Step 2A – Prong 1 – The claim recites the additional abstract ideas:
solving the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the second period of time [with the quantum device], thereby obtaining optimal trading trajectories for the second period of time – This limitation is further limiting the solving the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem limitation from claim 1, and is directed to a mathematical concept (mathematical formulas or equations [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.]).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional elements:
further comprising, after the historical financial data is available for the second period of time: digitally introducing a third set of data into the problem, the third set of data comprising historical financial data for the second period of time – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
solving the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the second period of time with the quantum device – This limitation is further limiting the quantum device limitation from claim 1, and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
digitally training the machine learning algorithm by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by the quantum device for the second period of time minimizing a predetermined error function for each time unit of the second period of time for which there is historical financial data in the third set of data – This limitation is further limiting the training the machine learning algorithm limitation from claim 1, and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
digitally introducing a fourth set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the fourth set of data comprising financial data for a third period of time that is posterior to the second period of time – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
and digitally providing a recommended portfolio composition for the third period of time by running the trained machine learning algorithm with the fourth set of data introduced therein – This limitation is further limiting the trained machine learning algorithm limitation of claim 1, and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional elements:
further comprising, after the historical financial data is available for the second period of time: digitally introducing a third set of data into the problem, the third set of data comprising historical financial data for the second period of time – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.].
solving the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the second period of time with the quantum device – This limitation is further limiting the quantum device limitation from claim 1, and is directed to solving a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem with a quantum device, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Glover et al., (Quantum Bridge Analytics I: A Tutorial on Formulating and Using QUBO Models) (“we focus on the Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) model which is presently the most widely applied optimization model in the quantum computing area” [Page 1, Abstract]).
digitally training the machine learning algorithm by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by the quantum device for the second period of time minimizing a predetermined error function for each time unit of the second period of time for which there is historical financial data in the third set of data – This limitation is further limiting the machine learning algorithm limitation of claim 1, and is directed to training a machine learning algorithm by using an input data set and minimizing an error function, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Camacho et al., (US PGPUB No US2007/0042718 A1) (“In FIG. 6 the training model of a generic neural network (601) is described. To be able to carry out the adjustment of the internal parameters, weightings and offsets of the various neurons which constitute the neural network (500, 601), it is necessary to have an input data set (602) and the targets (603) which the network has to attain for said inputs. There are well known algorithms which permit the network to be trained minimizing the error (605) between the output values (604) and the targets (603) which a comparator (606) provides.” [0091]).
digitally introducing a fourth set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the fourth set of data comprising financial data for a third period of time that is posterior to the second period of time – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.].
and digitally providing a recommended portfolio composition for the third period of time by running the trained machine learning algorithm with the fourth set of data introduced therein – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.].
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 2A – Prong 1 – The claim recites the additional abstract idea:
further comprising digitally commanding making one or more investments based on the recommended portfolio composition provided – This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]). The digitally commanding is reciting a computer at a high level of generality which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises a neural network or a variational quantum circuit – This limitation is further limiting the machine learning algorithm limitation of claim 1, and is directed to is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises a neural network or a variational quantum circuit – This limitation is further limiting the machine learning algorithm limitation of claim 1, and is directed to implementing a machine learning algorithm as a neural network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Cao et al. (DELAFO: An Efficient Portfolio Optimization Using Deep Neural Networks), “deep neural networks such as e.g. convolutional neural networks (CNN) and recurrent neural networks (RNN) have been proven to work well in many applications and multi-variable time series data” [Page 624, 1 Introduction]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 2A – Prong 1 – The claim recites the additional abstract idea:
wherein the cost function is
PNG
media_image1.png
59
144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where A at least comprises the following terms
PNG
media_image2.png
55
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or at least comprises the following terms
PNG
media_image3.png
47
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, where wt is a vector of the components of which are the percentages of each asset in the portfolio at time t, μt is a vector of expected returns at time t, γ is a parameter controlling the volatility of the portfolio, ∑t is a matrix of covariances of the returns at time t, v-t is a percentage of transaction costs, ∆wt is a change in the composition of the vector of assets between time t and time t + 1, Λt is a matrix of market impact at time t, and ti and tf are an initial time and a final time of a respective period of time – This limitation is further limiting the cost function limitation of claim 1, and is directed to a mathematical concept (mathematical formulas or equations [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the quantum device comprises one of: a quantum annealer, a hybrid quantum-classical machine, a universal gate-based quantum computer, or a Gaussian Boson Sampling quantum device – This limitation is further limiting the quantum device limitation of claim 1, and is directed to is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the quantum device comprises one of: a quantum annealer, a hybrid quantum-classical machine, a universal gate-based quantum computer, or a Gaussian Boson Sampling quantum device – This limitation is further limiting the quantum device limitation of claim 1, and is directed to implementing an algorithm onto a quantum device, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Kerman (US PGPUB No US2017/0141286 A1), “The two most well-known quantum-processing paradigms are: digital quantum computing … and quantum annealing” [0003].
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein digitally training the machine learning algorithm by inputting the optimal trading trajectories comprises inputting the optimal trading trajectories to the machine learning algorithm– Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein digitally training the machine learning algorithm by inputting the optimal trading trajectories comprises inputting the optimal trading trajectories to the machine learning algorithm– Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the one or more classical computing devices comprise one or more of: a computer processing unit, a graphics processing unit, and a field-programmable gate array – This limitation is further limiting the computing devices limitation from claim 7, and invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)].
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the one or more classical computing devices comprise one or more of: a computer processing unit, a graphics processing unit, and a field-programmable gate array – This limitation is further limiting the computing devices limitation from claim 7, and invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)].
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the first period of time comprises a plurality of days and the second period of time comprises one day This claim merely recites a further limitation on the introducing a first set of data into the problem, the first set of data comprising historical financial data for a first period of time, the historical financial data at least comprising prices of considered assets from Claim 1 which was directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the first period of time comprises a plurality of days and the second period of time comprises one day This claim merely recites a further limitation on the introducing a first set of data into the problem, the first set of data comprising historical financial data for a first period of time, the historical financial data at least comprising prices of considered assets from Claim 1 which was directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the one day of the second period of time is today or yesterday This claim merely recites a further limitation on the introducing a second set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the second set of data comprising financial data for a second period of time that is posterior to the first period of time, the financial data at least comprising prices of the considered assets from Claim 1 which was directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the one day of the second period of time is today or yesterday This claim merely recites a further limitation on the introducing a second set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the second set of data comprising financial data for a second period of time that is posterior to the first period of time, the financial data at least comprising prices of the considered assets from Claim 1 which was directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 11,
Step 1 – Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? – Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas:
provide a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem defined by an equation with a cost function for optimization of trading trajectories of an asset portfolio – This limitation is directed to a mathematical concept (mathematical formulas or equations [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.]).
solve the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the first period of time, thereby obtaining optimal trading trajectories for the first period of time;– This limitation is directed to a mathematical concept (mathematical formulas or equations [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.]).
provides a recommended composition of an asset portfolio based on a set of inputs - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
comprising: a quantum device; and one or more computing devices communicatively coupled with the quantum device; the one or more computing devices being configured to at least cause the apparatus to – This limitation invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
introduce a first set of data into the problem, the first set of data comprising historical financial data for a first period of time, the historical financial data at least comprising prices of considered assets – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
the quantum device being configured to at least cause the apparatus to solve the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the first period of time – This limitation is directed to is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
the one or more computing devices being configured to at least further cause the apparatus to– This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
train the machine learning algorithm by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by the quantum device for the first period of time and minimizing a predetermined error function for each time unit of the first period of time for which there is historical data in the first set of data – This limitation is directed to is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
introduce a second set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the second set of data comprising financial data for a second period of time that is posterior to the first period of time, the financial data at least comprising prices of the considered assets – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
provide a recommended portfolio composition for the second period of time by running the trained machine learning algorithm with the second set of data introduced therein – This limitation is directed to is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
comprising: a quantum device; and one or more computing devices communicatively coupled with the quantum device; the one or more computing devices being configured to at least cause the apparatus to – This limitation invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
introduce a first set of data into the problem, the first set of data comprising historical financial data for a first period of time, the historical financial data at least comprising prices of considered assets – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
the quantum device being configured to at least cause the apparatus to solve the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the first period of time – This limitation is directed to solving a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem with a quantum device, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Glover et al., (Quantum Bridge Analytics I: A Tutorial on Formulating and Using QUBO Models) (“we focus on the Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) model which is presently the most widely applied optimization model in the quantum computing area” [Page 1, Abstract]) and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
the one or more computing devices being configured to This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
train the machine learning algorithm by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by the quantum device for the first period of time and minimizing a predetermined error function for each time unit of the first period of time for which there is historical financial data in the first set of data – This limitation is directed training a machine learning algorithm by using an input data set and minimizing an error function, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Camacho et al., (US PGPUB No US2007/0042718 A1) (“In FIG. 6 the training model of a generic neural network (601) is described. To be able to carry out the adjustment of the internal parameters, weightings and offsets of the various neurons which constitute the neural network (500, 601), it is necessary to have an input data set (602) and the targets (603) which the network has to attain for said inputs. There are well known algorithms which permit the network to be trained minimizing the error (605) between the output values (604) and the targets (603) which a comparator (606) provides.” [0091]) and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
introduce a second set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the second set of data comprising financial data for a second period of time that is posterior to the first period of time, the financial data at least comprising prices of the considered assets – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
provide a recommended portfolio composition for the second period of time by running the trained machine learning algorithm with the second set of data introduced therein – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12,
Step 2A – Prong 1 – The claim recites the additional abstract ideas:
after historical financial data is available for the second period of time, solve the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the second period of time, thereby obtaining optimal trading trajectories for the second period of time – This limitation is further limiting the solve the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem from claim 11, and is directed to a mathematical concept (mathematical formulas or equations [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.]).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein: the one or more computing devices are configured to at least further cause the apparatus to, after historical financial data is available for the second period of time, introduce a third set of data into the problem, the third set of data comprising historical financial data for the second period of time – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
the quantum device is configured to at least further cause the apparatus to, after historical financial data is available for the second period of time, solve the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the second period of time – This limitation is further limiting the quantum device limitation from claim 11, and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
the one or more computing devices are configured to at least further cause the apparatus to, after historical financial data is available for the second period of time, train the machine learning algorithm by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by the quantum device for the second period of time and minimizing a predetermined error function for each time unit of the second period of time for which there is historical financial data in the third set of data – This limitation is further limiting the train the machine learning algorithm limitation from claim 11, and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
introduce a fourth set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the fourth set of data comprising financial data for a third period of time that is posterior to the second period of time – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
provide a recommended portfolio composition for the third period of time by running the trained machine learning algorithm with the fourth set of data introduced therein – This limitation is further limiting the trained machine learning algorithm limitation of claim 11, and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional elements:
wherein: the one or more computing devices are configured to at least further cause the apparatus to, after historical financial data is available for the second period of time, introduce a third set of data into the problem, the third set of data comprising historical financial data for the second period of time – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.].
the quantum device is configured to at least further cause the apparatus to, after historical financial data is available for the second period of time, solve the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the second period of time – This limitation is further limiting the quantum device limitation from claim 11, and is directed to solving a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem with a quantum device, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Glover et al., (Quantum Bridge Analytics I: A Tutorial on Formulating and Using QUBO Models) (“we focus on the Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) model which is presently the most widely applied optimization model in the quantum computing area” [Page 1, Abstract]).
the one or more computing devices are configured to at least further cause the apparatus to, after historical financial data is available for the second period of time, train the machine learning algorithm by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by the quantum device for the second period of time and minimizing a predetermined error function for each time unit of the second period of time for which there is historical financial data in the third set of data – This limitation is further limiting the train the machine learning algorithm limitation from claim 11, and is directed to training a machine learning algorithm by using an input data set and minimizing an error function, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Camacho et al., (US PGPUB No US2007/0042718 A1) (“In FIG. 6 the training model of a generic neural network (601) is described. To be able to carry out the adjustment of the internal parameters, weightings and offsets of the various neurons which constitute the neural network (500, 601), it is necessary to have an input data set (602) and the targets (603) which the network has to attain for said inputs. There are well known algorithms which permit the network to be trained minimizing the error (605) between the output values (604) and the targets (603) which a comparator (606) provides.” [0091]).
introduce a fourth set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the fourth set of data comprising financial data for a third period of time that is posterior to the second period of time – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.].
provide a recommended portfolio composition for the third period of time by running the trained machine learning algorithm with the fourth set of data introduced therein – This limitation is further limiting the trained machine learning algorithm limitation of claim 11, and is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.].
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 13,
Step 2A – Prong 1 – The claim recites the additional abstract idea:
wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to at least further cause the apparatus to command making one or more investments based on the recommended portfolio composition provided – This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]). The one or more computing devices are recited at a high level of generality which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises a neural network or a variational quantum circuit – This limitation is further limiting the machine learning algorithm limitation of claim 11, and is directed to is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises a neural network or a variational quantum circuit – This limitation is further limiting the machine learning algorithm limitation of claim 11, and is directed to implementing a machine learning algorithm as a neural network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Cao et al. (DELAFO: An Efficient Portfolio Optimization Using Deep Neural Networks), “deep neural networks such as e.g. convolutional neural networks (CNN) and recurrent neural networks (RNN) have been proven to work well in many applications and multi-variable time series data” [Page 624, 1 Introduction]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 15,
Step 2A – Prong 1 – The claim recites the additional abstract idea:
wherein the cost function is
PNG
media_image1.png
59
144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where A at least comprises the following terms
PNG
media_image2.png
55
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or at least comprises the following terms
PNG
media_image3.png
47
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, where wt is a vector of the components of which are the percentages of each asset in the portfolio at time t, μt is a vector of expected returns at time t, γ is a parameter controlling the volatility of the portfolio, ∑t is a matrix of covariances of the returns at time t, v-t is a percentage of transaction costs, ∆wt is a change in the composition of the vector of assets between time t and time t + 1, Λt is a matrix of market impact at time t, and ti and tf are an initial time and a final time of a respective period of time – This limitation is further limiting the cost function limitation of claim 11, and is directed to a mathematical concept (mathematical formulas or equations [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 16,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the quantum device comprises one of: a quantum annealer, a hybrid quantum-classical machine, a universal gate-based quantum computer, or a Gaussian Boson Sampling quantum device – This limitation is further limiting the quantum device limitation of claim 1, and is directed to is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the quantum device comprises one of: a quantum annealer, a hybrid quantum-classical machine, a universal gate-based quantum computer, or a Gaussian Boson Sampling quantum device – This limitation is further limiting the quantum device limitation of claim 1, and is directed to implementing an algorithm onto a quantum device, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by Kerman (US PGPUB No US2017/0141286 A1), “The two most well-known quantum-processing paradigms are: digital quantum computing … and quantum annealing” [0003].
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 17,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the one or more computing devices comprise one or more of: a computer processing unit, a graphics processing unit, and a field-programmable gate array – This limitation is further limiting the computing devices limitation from claim 7, and invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)].
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the one or more computing devices comprise one or more of: a computer processing unit, a graphics processing unit, and a field-programmable gate array – This limitation is further limiting the computing devices limitation from claim 11, and invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)].
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 18,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the first period of time comprises a plurality of days and the second period of time comprises one day – This limitation is further limiting the first period of time and second period of time limitations of claim 11, and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated [see MPEP 2106.05(g)]).
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the first period of time comprises a plurality of days and the second period of time comprises one day – This limitation is further limiting the first period of time and second period of time limitations of claim 11, and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated [see MPEP 2106.05(g)]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 19,
Step 2A – Prong 2 – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the one day of the second period of time is today or yesterday – This limitation is further limiting the second period of time comprises one day limitation of claim 9, and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated [see MPEP 2106.05(g)]).
Step 2B – The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the one day of the second period of time is today or yesterday – This limitation is further limiting the second period of time comprises one day limitation of claim 9, and is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated [see MPEP 2106.05(g)]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, under step 2B.
Regarding claim 20,
Step 1 – Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? – Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas:
providing a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem defined by an equation with a cost function for optimization of trading trajectories of an asset portfolio – This limitation is directed to a mathematical concept (mathematical formulas or equations [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.]).
provides a recommended composition of an asset portfolio based on a set of inputs - This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Ill. C.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by at least one processor or hardware, make an apparatus at least perform the following – This limitation invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
introducing a first set of data into the problem, the first set of data comprising historical financial data for a first period of time, the historical financial data at least comprising prices of considered assets – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
providing the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the first period of time to a quantum device for solving of the problem by the quantum device; Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
providing a quantum or classical machine learning algorithm This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
training the machine learning algorithm by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by the quantum device for the first period of time and minimizing a predetermined error function for each time unit of a first period of time for which there is historical financial data in the first set of data – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
introducing a second set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the second set of data comprising financial data for a second period of time that is posterior to the first period of time, the financial data at least comprising prices of the considered assets – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
providing a recommended portfolio composition for the second period of time by running the trained machine learning algorithm with the second set of data introduced therein – This limitation is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(g)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by at least one processor or hardware, make an apparatus at least perform the following – This limitation invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Introducing a first set of data into the problem, the first set of data comprising historical financial data for a first period of time, the historical financial data at least comprising prices of considered assets – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
providing the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for the first period of time to a quantum device for solving of the problem by the quantum device; Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
providing a quantum or classical machine learning algorithm This limitation is directed to a computer merely used as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)).
training the machine learning algorithm by both inputting the optimal trading trajectories obtained by the quantum device for the first period of time and minimizing a predetermined error function for each time unit of a first period of time for which there is historical financial data in the first set of data – This limitation is directed to *, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as explained by ** and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
introducing a second set of data into the machine learning algorithm, the second set of data comprising financial data for a second period of time that is posterior to the first period of time, the financial data at least comprising prices of the considered assets – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
providing a recommended portfolio composition for the second period of time by running the trained machine learning algorithm with the second set of data introduced therein – This limitation is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i.] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over the cited prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm 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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/AMY TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2126 /DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights