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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Supplemental Amendments on 02/19/2026. Claims 1-11 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 ….; 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 based on the determined degree of contribution, 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 ….; 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 based on the determined degree of contribution, 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 ….; 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 based on the determined degree of contribution, 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 ….; 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 based on the determined degree of contribution, 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
6. 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.
1. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that the although the rejection asserts that claim features are “directed to” the USPTO’s abstract idea subgrouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, the claim features are not directed to that subgrouping because: the claims do not MPEP 2106.04(ID)(A)(1) “recite”? that subgrouping even if MPEP 2106.04(ID(A)(1) “involving” that subgrouping, and il. the Applicant’s assertion that the claims are not “directed to” the rejection’s cited “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” is supported in view of the pending claims’ similarities to the USPTO’s currently pending Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance Example 2 “E-Commerce Outsourcing System/Generating Composite Web Page” (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 1-3).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that independent claims 1, 7, 8, and 9 at issue recite limitations 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.). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-11 in the section above.
2. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that because the recited elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the amended claims are not "directed to" the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). And the claim features integrate the alleged abstract into a practical application for the following reasons. a) Technical Problem Solved: Data Overload: The rejection's analysis in the Office Action focuses on the abstract idea of "commercial interactions" (buy/sell patterns). However, the rejection's analysis overlooks a specific technical problem that arises when attempting to implement such characterized analysis on a computer. For example, MPEP 2106.07(a)(II) notes that: "...In the event a rejection is made, it is a best practice for the examiner to consult the specification to determine if there are elements that could be added to the claim to make it eligible. If so, the examiner should identify those elements in the Office action and suggest them as a way to overcome the rejection" … b) Specific Technical Solution: Claim 1 recites a specific technical solution to this "computer problem," and claim 1 is not a mere instruction to "apply" the abstract idea of financial analysis. Instead, the claim recites a specific, multi-step technological improvement: First, the processor determines the "contribution" of each rule to the regression model. This is a specifically calculated technical metric. Second, the processor selects a "predetermined number" of rules based on the calculated metric. Third, the processor outputs only this filtered subset, thereby "controlling the screen to prevent a data overload" … This is exactly the kind of "technological improvement" (or improvement to the functioning of a computer) that the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance indicates is patent eligible. c) Analogy to USPTO Guidance (Example 47): This analysis is strongly supported by the USPTO's July 2024 "Subject Matter Eligibility Examples," specifically Example 47 ("Anomaly Detection"). Eligible Claim 3 of Example 47 recites an abstract analysis (detecting anomalies), but integrates it into a practical application by adding specific technical actions that improve the system: (e) discarding malicious packets and (f) blocking future traffic from that source. This is considered a technological improvement in "network security" … claim 1 is eligible because it uses abstract analysis to perform specific technical actions (selecting/filtering) that improve the functioning of the computer (preventing data overload and improving UI rendering efficiency). Therefore, claim 1 is not "directed to" a judicial exception (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 3-6).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that unlike eligible Claim 3 of Example 47, 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). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of the claims in the section above.
3. Applicant’s Argument: From Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicants submit that even if the claims were considered to be "directed to" an abstract idea, the claim features provide "significantly more" and amount to an inventive concept (Step 2B: YES). The Examiner previously dismissed the "data overload" feature of former Claim 10 as generic. However, claim 1 recites significantly more than just the result of preventing overload. Specifically, claim 1 regards a specific mechanism for doing so: the combination of (i) finding causal rules using a regression model, (ii) calculating the "contribution" of each rule, and (iii) filtering the rules to be displayed to a "predetermined number" using that specific metric … this specific combination provides an inventive concept, rendering the claims patent eligible under Step 2B. Accordingly, it is requested that the rejection of claim 1, and similarly to the other claims, be withdrawn for any of the above noted reasons. It is already requested that a next Action, if any, not be made final as the pending Action is non-responsive to the Applicant's remarks from the previous Amendment (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 6-7).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that independent claims 1, 7, 8, and 9 at issue 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 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. See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-11 in the section above. In addition, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the pending Action is responsive to the Applicant's remarks from the previous Amendment and therefore this Action is made Final.
7. 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-11 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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”, have been considered and they are persuasive (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 7-9).
Examiner notes that the amended limitations “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 based on the determined degree of contribution, 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” of amended independent claims 1. 7, 8, and 9 are deemed not to be found in the prior art and updated search. Therefore, the Examiner hereby withdraws the 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections of these claims and their respective dependent claims.
Relevant Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
OKABE et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0024516) teach information analysis assistance device, operation method and operation program thereof, and information analysis assistance system.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
11. 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.
12. 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
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696