DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
6. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claim 7 is directed to an information providing method (i.e., process), claims 1-6, 10-11 are directed to an information providing server (i.e., machine), claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium (i.e., machine) and claim 9 is directed to a data processing apparatus (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “determine a plurality of referenced customers whose investment product transaction data satisfy a reference standard based on past investment product transaction data of a plurality of customers, the reference standard indicating that a valuation profit and loss within a reference period is superior to a predetermined first level; determine a plurality of comparative customers whose investment product transaction data satisfy a comparative standard based on the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of customers, the comparative standard indicating that the valuation profit and loss within the reference period is inferior to a predetermined second level; compute, for each stock, buy/sell pattern of a plurality of the referenced customers based on both investment product transaction data of the plurality of the referenced customers and investment product transaction data of the plurality of the comparative customers; output … on which referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in a time-series manner, the computed buy/sell pattern, of a plurality of the referenced customers, and a price chart indicating a time-series change in price of an investment product are displayed side by side, and … displays, in the time-series manner, a period, a scale, and a scale interval of the price chart coinciding with and, in a vertical direction…, aligned with a period, a scale, and a scale interval of the referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data displayed ….; compute comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in the time-series manner, a buy/sell pattern of the plurality of comparative customers, based on the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of comparative customers; determine, … learned from the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of referenced customers and a past state value of each of a plurality of determination material items, a plurality of rules, each rule indicating at least one determination material item presumed to be a cause of the buy/sell pattern at each of a plurality of timings; determine a degree of contribution of each of the plurality of rules …; select, from the plurality of rules, a predetermined number of rules to be displayed based on the determined degree of contribution and by applying both of a first condition and a second condition, the first condition indicating that one or more of a plurality of determination material items coinciding with each other are not to be repeatedly selected, and the second condition indicating to select a rule that is other than of the plurality of rules that contributed to regression of the comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data, wherein the predetermined number is less than a total number of the plurality of rules; and output a third screen displaying, of all the plurality of rules, only the selected predetermined number of rules” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities of buy/sell investment product such as stock, an investment trust, etc.). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “an information providing server”, “at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions”, “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions”, “a first screen”, “a second screen”, “a regression model”, and “a third screen”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 of “an information providing server”, “at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions”, “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions”, “a first screen”, “a second screen”, “a regression model”, and “a third screen” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 7:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 7 recites the at least following limitations of “determining a plurality of referenced customers whose investment product transaction data satisfy a reference standard based on the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of customers, the reference standard indicating that the valuation profit and loss within a reference period is superior to a predetermined first level; determining a plurality of comparative customers whose investment product transaction data satisfy a comparative standard based on past investment product transaction data of a plurality of customers, the comparative standard indicating that a valuation profit and loss within the reference period is inferior to a predetermined second level; computing, for each stock, buy/sell pattern of the plurality of the referenced customers based on both investment product transaction data of a plurality of the referenced customers and investment product transaction data of the plurality of the comparative customers; outputting … on which referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in a time-series manner, the computed buy/sell pattern, of a plurality of referenced customers, and a price chart indicating a time-series change in price of an investment product are displayed side by side, and … displays, in the time-series manner, a period, a scale, and a scale interval of the price chart coinciding with and, in a vertical direction …, aligned with a period, a scale, and a scale interval of the referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data displayed ….; computing comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in the time- series manner, a buy/sell pattern of the plurality of comparative customers, based on the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of comparative customers; determining, … from the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of referenced customers and a past state value of each of a plurality of determination material items, a plurality of rules, each rule indicating at least one determination material item presumed to be a cause of the buy/sell pattern at each of a plurality of timings; determining a degree of contribution of each of the plurality of rules …; selecting, from the plurality of rules, a predetermined number of rules to be displayed based on the determined degree of contribution and by applying both of a first condition and a second condition, the first condition indicating that one or more of a plurality of determination material items coinciding with each other are not to be repeatedly selected, and the second condition indicating to select a rule that is other than of the plurality of rules that contributed to regression of the comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data, wherein the predetermined number is less than a total number of the plurality of rules; and … displaying, of all the plurality of rules, only the selected predetermined number of rules” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities of buy/sell investment product such as stock, an investment trust, etc.). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 7 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a computer”, “a first screen”, “second screen”, “a regression model learned”, and “a third screen”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 of “a computer”, “a first screen”, “second screen”, “a regression model learned”, and “a third screen” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 8:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 8 recites the at least following limitations of “determine a plurality of referenced customers whose investment product transaction data satisfy a reference standard based on the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of customers, the reference standard indicating that the valuation profit and loss within a reference period is superior to a predetermined first level; determine the plurality of comparative customers whose investment product transaction data satisfy a comparative standard based on past investment product transaction data of the plurality of customers, the comparative standard indicating that the valuation profit and loss within the reference period is inferior to a predetermined second level; compute, for each stock, buy/sell pattern of the plurality of the referenced customers based on both investment product transaction data of the plurality of the referenced customers and investment product transaction data of the plurality of the comparative customers; output … on which referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in a time-series manner, the computed buy/sell pattern, of a plurality of referenced customers, and a price chart indicating a time-series change in price of an investment product are displayed side by side, and … displays, in the time-series manner, a period, a scale, and a scale interval of the price chart coinciding with and, in a vertical direction …, aligned with a period, a scale, and a scale interval of the referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data displayed ….; compute comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in the time- series manner, a buy/sell pattern of the plurality of comparative customers, based on the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of comparative customers; determine, … from the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of referenced customers and a past state value of each of plurality of determination material items, a plurality of rules, each rule indicating at least one determination material item presumed to be a cause of the buy/sell pattern at each of a plurality of timings; determine a degree of contribution of each of the plurality of rules …; select, from the plurality of rules, a predetermined number of rules to be displayed based on the determined degree of contribution and by applying both of a first condition and a second condition, the first condition indicating that one or more of a plurality of determination material items coinciding with each other are not to be repeatedly selected, and the second condition indicating to select a rule that is other than of the plurality of rules that contributed to regression of the comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data, wherein the predetermined number is less than a total number of the plurality of rules; and … displaying, of all the plurality of rules, only the selected predetermined number of rules” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities of buy/sell investment product such as stock, an investment trust, etc.). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 8 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a non-transitory storage medium”, “a computer”, “a first screen”, “a second screen”, “a regression model learned”, and “a third screen”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 of “a non-transitory storage medium”, “a computer”, “a first screen”, “a second screen”, “a regression model learned”, and “a third screen” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 9:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 9 recites the at least following limitations of “determine a plurality of referenced customers whose investment product transaction data satisfy a reference standard based on the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of customers, the reference standard indicating that the valuation profit and loss within a reference period is superior to a predetermined first level; determine the plurality of comparative customers whose investment product transaction data satisfy a comparative standard based on past investment product transaction data of a plurality of customers, the comparative standard indicating that a valuation profit and loss within the reference period is inferior to a predetermined second level; and compute referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in a time-series manner, a buy/sell pattern of the plurality of referenced customers for each stock, based on both past investment product transaction data of the plurality of referenced customers and past investment product transaction data of the plurality of comparative customers; and output … referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in a time-series manner, the computed buy/sell pattern of the plurality of referenced customers, and a price chart indicating a time-series change in price of an investment product are displayed side by side, and … displays, in the time-series manner, a period, a scale, and a scale interval of the price chart coinciding with and, in a vertical direction …, aligned with a period, a scale, and a scale interval of the referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data displayed ….; compute comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in the time-series manner, a buy/sell pattern of the plurality of comparative customers, based on the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of comparative customers; determine, … from the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of referenced customers and a past state value of each of a plurality of determination material items, a plurality of rules, each rule indicating at least one determination material item presumed to be a cause of the buy/sell pattern at each of a plurality of timings; determine a degree of contribution of each of the plurality of rules …; select, from the plurality of rules, a predetermined number of rules to be displayed based on the determined degree of contribution and by applying both of a first condition and a second condition, the first condition indicating that one or more of a plurality of determination material items coinciding with each other are not to be repeatedly selected, and the second condition indicating to select a rule that is other than of the plurality of rules that contributed to regression of the comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data, wherein the predetermined number is less than a total number of the plurality of rules; and output a third screen displaying, of all the plurality of rules, only the selected predetermined number of rules.” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities of buy/sell investment product such as stock, an investment trust, etc.). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 9 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a data processing apparatus”, “at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions”, “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions”, “a screen”, “a regression model learned”, and “a third screen”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does 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 of “a data processing apparatus”, “at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions”, “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions”, “a screen”, “a regression model learned”, and “a third screen” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 10-11 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 2: simply provides further definition to “the processor” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to output a screen on which the referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in a time-series manner, a buying pattern of the plurality of referenced customers, and the referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in a time-series manner, a selling pattern of the plurality of referenced customers are displayed separately amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the processor, a screen).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 3: simply provides further definition to “the reference standard” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the reference standard is defined by using a valuation profit and loss within the reference period does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 4: simply provides further definition to “the reference standard” recited in dependent claim 3. Simply stating that wherein the reference standard is defined by further using at least one of a number of buy/sell per day within the reference period, a total number of buy/sell within the reference period, and a number of stocks buying and selling within thereference period does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 5: simply provides further definition to “the referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data are computed based on, in addition to past investment product transaction data of the plurality of referenced customers, past investment product transaction data of the plurality of comparative customers satisfying the comparative standard does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 6: simply provides further definition to “the processor” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to output the screen indicating, based on past investment product transaction data of the plurality of referenced customers, and the past state value of each of the plurality of determination material items, the determination material item being presumed to be a cause of a buy/sell pattern indicated by the referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data at each timing, and the state value of the at least one determination material item amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the processor, a screen).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 10: simply provides further definition to “the processor” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to output ]the third screen based on: selecting the predetermined number of rules from the plurality of rules based on determining that the predetermined number of rules each contribute more so to a regression than do any of a remainder of all of the plurality of rules besides the predetermined number of rules, and controlling the third screen to display, of all of the plurality of rules, only at most the predetermined number of rules amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the at least one processor, a third screen).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the at least one processor, a third screen) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 11: simply provides further definition to “the processor” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to output, in response to receiving a user input specifying a timing, a third screen indicating a determination material item, as being presumed to be a cause of the buy/sell pattern, and a state value of the determination material item amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the at least one processor, a third screen).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., the at least one processor, a third screen) that results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
7. 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-11 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicates that: A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application … The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement … As explained bridging pages 11 and12 of the February 25, 2025 amendment in this application, a technical problem resolved by embodiments of this application regards side by side display of otherwise overwhelming amounts of data which, by the implied data overflow or overload that naturally occurs from aspects of this application, such as from the features of those paragraphs referenced above and reflected in the claims, is clearly improved by the claim features. And see claim 1, and similarly the other independent claims, reciting: An information providing server comprising at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and … output a third screen displaying, of all the plurality of rules, only the selected predetermined number of rules. As such, there is provided for not only extracting rules having a large degree of contribution from among a large number of rules derived from a regression model, but also selecting rules based on a condition that "indicating that one or more of a plurality of determination material items coinciding with each other are not to be repeatedly selected". As a result, the server actively prevents the generation and transmission of redundant data, reducing the amount of communication data (consumption of communication bandwidth) between the server and the customer terminal, thereby improving the network communication speed the claims reflect a technical improvement in data processing and communication efficiency by eliminating duplication from the regression model. Furthermore, there is also provided for selecting a rule that is not included in a plurality of rules that contributed to regression of comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data from among a plurality of rules contributed to regression of referenced customer buy/sell pattern time-series data … This specific algorithm is not mere data collection or general output. As shown in the USPTO guidance (e.g., Example 47 "Anomaly Detection" and Example 48 "Speech Separation"), the technical action of actively eliminating (filtering) unnecessary information from a large amount of data using specific rules is considered a technical improvement that increases the processing efficiency of the entire system … Furthermore, by generating and outputting a screen using only the extracted small number of unique rules, the UI rendering load on the customer terminal is reduced, and the rendering processing speed is improved. Therefore, the present claims do not use a computer as a mere tool, but represent the achievement of an improvement in the computer technology field of data processing efficiency and UI rendering. For the above reasons, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-5).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that amended independent claims 1, 7, 8, and 9 at issue include additional elements of “an information providing server”, “at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions”, “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions”, “a first screen”, “a second screen”, “a regression model”, and “a third screen”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-11 in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the claimed invention, but they do not disclose all the claimed features, as explained below.
9. The best prior art of record, LEE et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0325747), hereinafter, “LEE”, in view of Arazi (U.S. Patent No. 10,467,327), hereinafter, “Arazi”, and in view of Hao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0103189), hereinafter, “Hao”, alone or in combination, neither discloses nor fairly suggests the instant application amended claim limitations of “compute comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data indicating, in the time-series manner, a buy/sell pattern of the plurality of comparative customers, based on the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of comparative customers; determine, based on a regression model learned from the past investment product transaction data of the plurality of referenced customers and a past state value of each of a plurality of determination material items, a plurality of rules, each rule indicating at least one determination material item presumed to be a cause of the buy/sell pattern at each of a plurality of timings; determine a degree of contribution of each of the plurality of rules to the regression model; select, from the plurality of rules, a predetermined number of rules to be displayed based on the determined degree of contribution and by applying both of a first condition and a second condition, the first condition indicating that one or more of a plurality of determination material items coinciding with each other are not to be repeatedly selected, and the second condition indicating to select a rule that is other than of the plurality of rules that contributed to regression of the comparative customer buy/sell pattern time-series data, wherein the predetermined number is less than a total number of the plurality of rules; and output a third screen displaying, of all the plurality of rules, only the selected predetermined number of rules.”
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/SCOTT S TROTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights