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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/21/2025 has been entered.
The following is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination of 10/21/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, and 19-25, as originally filed 10/21/2025, are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1, 10, and 16 being independent). Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 12, and 16 have been amended, new claims 22-25 have been added, and claims 2-3, 7, 11, 13, and 17-18 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments (see remarks, pages 13-16, filed 10/21/2025) with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, and 19-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, and 19-25 has been withdrawn.
Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 8-13):
(1) Applicant's arguments that “The present claims are directed to technological improvements in real-time trade surveillance by leveraging spectrograms to identify human emotions, and training and using a CNN model to identify similar emotions. Significantly, at least the steps of training a CNN model to detect and classify emotions in a spectrogram of an audio communication and converting an audio communication into a spectrogram do not fall into the category of "methods of organizing human activity."” (see remarks, page 10), are not found persuasive.
Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04. In the instant application, Examiner considers the cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of a processor. Managing a risk in a security trading using a trader emotions is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(2) Applicant's arguments that “In the present application, the claims as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the recited system, steps, and non-transitory computer-readable media each improve the technology of detecting potential securities fraud by converting audio communications into spectrograms, training/applying a CNN to detect emotions, and scoring one or more emotions in the spectrogram of the audio communications. This pipeline sharply reduces false positives compared to ordinary speech-to-text keyword spotting” (see remarks, page 11), are not found persuasive.
In the instant application, Examiner considers the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. In particular the claim limits of (1) “training a convolutional neural network (CNN) model” and “a spectrogram of an audio communication” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g., “apply it”) and (2) “the processor, to perform operations”, describes transmitting generic instructions to a generic a computer component, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a generic computer component. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) are claimed and described at a high level of generality and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. The claim limits also recite the use of a processor, a convolutional neural network (CNN) model, an audio communication, by the trained CNN model, and a spectrogram as additional elements. However, the use of these additionally elements, described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(3) Applicant's arguments that “The combination of spectrogram-based CNN classification, baseline emotional profiles, textual risk scoring, and synergy of communication and emotion risk scores, along with the use of an audio communication, CNN model, a processor, a trained CNN model, and a spectrogram to monitor trades is neither routine nor conventional in trade surveillance or monitoring of trades. These specific technical features, and their use in the systems, methods, and training CNN s as recited herein, are indicative of an inventive step.” (see remarks, page 12), are not found persuasive.
In the instant application, Examiner considers the claim does not include additional elements (e.g., a processor, a convolutional neural network (CNN) model, an audio communication, by the trained CNN model, and a spectrogram) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea over a generic computer with a generic computer element. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, and 19-25 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.
As the recited claim in independent claims 1, 10, and 16, “creating … a base emotional profile comprising a level of each emotion of anger, anticipation, joy, trust, fear, surprise, sadness and disgust”, the subject matter is not properly described in the application as filed, and provide an explanation of your position. The recited amendment as highlighted above is not described in the specification any more detail about how the disclosed invention accomplishes the creation of a base emotional profile with a level of each of the eight listed emotions than the end-result described in the independent claims. And, also it is not described with sufficient detail beyond the claimed function being repeated in the written description.
Dependent claims (4-6, 8-9, 12, 14-15, and 19-25) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected independent claim.
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, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for monitoring a trade using emotions to detect potential securities fraud which contains the steps of receiving, scoring, comparing, detecting, assigning, and generating. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 10 is directed to a method, and claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for monitoring a trade using emotions to detect potential securities fraud is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: training… to detect and classify emotions…, receiving… audio communication…, converting… audio… into a spectrogram…, scoring… one or more emotions…, creating… a base emotional profile…, receiving… current audio communication…, converting… current audio into a spectrogram…, scoring… one or more emotions…, comparing… emotional profile…, detecting… score for an emotion…, assigning… an emotion risk score…, converting… in the text…, identifying… keywords…, assigning… risk score…, and generating… alert for potential securities fraud …
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices- see MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2))
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: (1) “training a convolutional neural network (CNN) model” and “a spectrogram of an audio communication” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g., “apply it”) and (2) “the processor, to perform operations”, describes transmitting generic instructions to a generic a computer component, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a generic computer component. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. apply it 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)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (e.g., a processor, a convolutional neural network (CNN) model, an audio communication, by the trained CNN model, and a spectrogram) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraph [0052]: a computer, a network server, a processing component (e.g., a processor), a system memory component, a network interface component, a display component, etc.) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it 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)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., a processor, a convolutional neural network (CNN) model, an audio communication, by the trained CNN model, and a spectrogram) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea over a generic computer component with a generic interface element.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 4-6, 8-9, 12, 14-15, and 19-25 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claims 4 and 12, the step of “… wherein the detected score is associated with the emotion of anticipation, joy,...” (i.e., a score with emotions), in claims 5, 22, and 24 the step of “… wherein the base emotional profile further comprises when anger, anticipation, joy, trust, fear, surprise, sadness, and disgust was first detected and last detected.” (i.e., detecting an emotion), in claims 6, 23, and 25 the step of “… wherein the operations further comprise determining, from the base emotional profile, which of anger, anticipation, joy, trust, fear, surprise, sadness, and disgust are dominant in the trader.” (i.e., determining emotions), in claims 8, 14, and 19, the step of “… reviewing trade transactions executed by the trader; reviewing timing of the executed trade transactions;...” (i.e., reviewing trade transactions), in claims 9, 15, and 20, the step of “… correlating the trade risk score, the communication risk score, and the emotion risk score to determine a likelihood that the trader...” (i.e., determining securities fraud), and in claim 21, the step of “… wherein each spectrogram of each audio communication and the spectrogram of the current audio communication ...” (i.e., having a log-mel spectrogram) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Determining securities fraud using a trade risk score is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 4-6, 8-9, 12, 14-15, and 19-25, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1, 10, and 16 above. Merely claiming the same process using a trade risk score in order to determine a trader is involved in securities fraud does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
November 10, 2025
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694