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 reply to the amendment filed on 01/23/2026.
Claims 4-5 were canceled.
Claims 1-3, 6-15 have been canceled.
Claims 16-18 have been added.
Claims 16-18 have been examined
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant asserted in page 9 that “the claimed subject matter is not directed to (b) certain methods of organizing human activity . . . However, claim 1 recites an interaction between a main server and a user terminal. . .”. Upon reviewing the newly added claim, the claim is directed to concept of pairs trading and selecting a pair of financial product, which leverage the use of generic computing system. The use of a User Interface to display selectable options are only additional elements which do not meaningfully recite a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites a concept that is part of an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two, step 2A analysis, the Applicant asserted that “[claim 16] is directed to a product recommendation user interface (UI) system and therefore satisfies prong- which cannot be formed in the human mind . . . claim 16 describes an interactive UI that receives and displays information (e.g. via a user terminal) . . .”. However, the use of an interactive UI that receives and displays information does not automatically render the claim a practical application. It seems that the user interface performs a generic steps of performing a judicial exception. Hence, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application: 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).
Under step 2B analysis, the limitations are not indicative of an inventive concept: integration into a practical application: 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).
Hence, the applicant failed to establish that the limitations are indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the Applicant canceled claims 1-15. The applicant added new claims 16-18. Claim 16 has been incorporated with subject matter distinguished from the prior art from claims 6-8, 10-12 and 14. The claim has been sufficiently amended and narrowed in scope, it would not have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art to combine all the references to draw obviousness rationale to teach the amended claim. Therefore, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
The claims are still subject to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
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 16-18 are directed to a product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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. Claims 1-14 are directed to an abstract idea, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide generic computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites, in part, A product recommendation user interface system comprising: a user terminal comprising a display component, the user terminal configured to display an interactive user interface; a main server communicatively coupled to the user terminal, the main server comprising a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; And a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the main server to: receive information related to a plurality of financial products; cause the display of the interactive user interface by the display component of the user terminal, wherein the interactive user interface comprises the plurality of financial products; receive a user input, via the interactive user interface, the user input comprising a selection of a first financial product of the plurality of financial products, wherein the interactive user interface comprises a volatility adjustment user interface configured to receive a volatility value user input and adjust a range of volatility between financial products of the plurality of financial products; automatically detect one or more financial products of plurality of financial products based on the first financial product, wherein price trends of the one or more financial products are equal to a price trend of the first financial product or equal to or less than a predefined difference within a specific period from the price trend of the first financial product; associate a digital identifier of the first financial product with a digital identifier of a second financial product to form a financial product pair based on a periodicity of a spread graph for a price difference or price ratio between the first financial product and the second financial product; cause display by the user terminal, of the financial product pair on an interactive price comparison graph, via the interactive user interface, wherein the interactive user interface comprises a click input interface, wherein interaction with the click input interface stores the financial product pair as an interest pair and wherein a subsequent interaction with the click input interface releases the interest pair; cause display by the user terminal, via the interactive user interface, a graphical recommendation comprising at least one of borrowed selling, short selling, a future selling contract, or net selling of an overvalued financial product of the financial product pair, or of buying an undervalued financial product of the financial product pair when a current value on the spread graph for the recommended financial product pair is equal to or greater than a predetermined standard deviation or a multiple of a standard error of the spread graph; receive via a standard deviation setting of the interactive user interface, a user input from the user terminal, the user input comprising a parameter for setting a multiple of a standard deviation or the standard error of the spread graph for a purchase or sale of a financial product of the plurality of financial products; and generate another financial product pair based at least on an average, standard deviation, linear regression estimation value, or standard error of the spread graph between two financial products of the plurality of financial products, wherein the other financial product pair corresponds to the multiple of the standard deviation or the standard error, wherein the interactive user interface comprises a period information input function, a desired profit rate input function, a price information graph display function, a minimum expected profit rate setting UI, and a detailed information UI, and the period information is received from the user terminal, wherein to automatically detect the one or more financial products, the processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the main server to: divide, at a plurality of predetermined intervals, period information for a specific period information among the plurality of financial products; determine a finding of a similar trend when price information rise or fall together at the predetermined intervals, or at slopes of a trend line of financial products derived by regression analysis within a predetermined difference; search for two financial products of the plurality of financial products, corresponding to the first financial product and the second financial product, the two financial products having a first price similarity level, wherein a price volatility difference or ratio between the two financial products for a specific period information is equal to or greater than, or less than a predetermined numerical range among the plurality of financial products; and associate identifiers of the two financial products to form the financial product pair, and wherein to cause display of the product recommendation, the processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the main server to: generate an average and a standard deviation of a price for each of the first financial product and the second financial product; obtain a normalized price for each of the first financial product and the second financial product by normalizing a current value of the first financial product and the second financial product; and determine that one of the first financial product and the second financial product is overvalued based on the normalized price. These limitations are directed to concepts of detecting spread in financial products and performing financial hedging – hedging (fundamental economic practices). Hence, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a product, user interface system, processors, interactive user interface, a display, a main server recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, generating, and determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device helps for recommending financial product sales strategy based on detection of financial products in similar is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim 17 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites applying an average and standard deviation method. The additional elements (such as, user interface, user terminal, input signal) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims add 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 18 has been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claim recites generating primary profit rate. The additional elements (such as, user interface, user terminal, input signal) of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims add 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). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 16-18 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
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, Mike W. Anderson, can be reached at (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693