DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the application filed January 2nd, 2024. Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/24, 10/03/25, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 1 recites “the meanings” within the line beginning “a definition setting unit” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “redefines meanings”;
Independent claim 1 recites “the momentum theory” within the line beginning “a model creation unit”, which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a momentum theory” or “momentum theory”;
Independent claim 1 recites “the trend” within the line beginning “a model creation unit”, which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a trend”;
Claim 3 recites “the development of crisis detection models at the national project level” and “the corporate level” within lines 2-3 which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a development of crisis detection models at a national project level” and “a corporate level”;
Claim 4 recites “the past six period” within the line beginning “wherein the model creation unit” which lacks antecedent basis;
Claim 6 recites “the period” within the line beginning “crisis index”, which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a period”;
Claim 7 recites “the background of the time point” and “the past crisis” within lines 2-3, which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a background of a time point” and “a past crisis”;
Independent claim 8 recites “the meanings” within the line beginning “redefining” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “redefines meanings”;
Independent claim 8 recites “the momentum theory” within the line beginning “creating”, which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a momentum theory” or “momentum theory”;
Independent claim 8 recites “the trend” within the line beginning “creating”, which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a trend”;
Claim 10 recites “the development of crisis detection models at the national project level” and “the corporate level” within lines 2-3 which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a development of crisis detection models at a national project level” and “a corporate level”;
Claim 11 recites “the past six period” within the line beginning “using the crisis index” which lacks antecedent basis;
Claim 12 recites “the period” within the line beginning “predict crises”, which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a period”;
Claim 13 recites “the background of the time point” and “the past crisis” within line 2-3, which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a background of a time point” and “a past crisis”;
Independent Claim 14 recites:
“the trend” within the line beginning “momentum theory” that lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a trend”;
“the crisis index” within the line beginning “momentum theory” that lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a crisis index”;
“the analysis results” within the line beginning “detection model” that lacks antecedent basis and should recite “an analysis results”;
“the meanings” within the line beginning “a definition setting unit” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “redefines meanings”; and
“the trend” within the line beginning “a model creation unit”, which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a trend”.
Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 2, 5, and 9 are objected due to their dependency of independent claims 1 and 8.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a definition setting unit that redefines” in claims 1, 2, and 14;
“a document analysis unit that analyzes” in claims 1, 3, and 14;
“a model creation unit that creates” in claims 1, 4, 5, and 14; and
“a crisis prediction unit that predicts” in claims 1, 6, 7, and 14;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
When looking to the specification, the hardware structure associated with the “definition setting unit, document analysis unit, model creation unit, and crisis prediction unit” is being interpreted as “processor,” please see at least Fig. 32 and paragraphs [0130-0132] of the instant specification. The corresponding algorithm of the “definition setting unit, document analysis unit, model creation unit, and crisis prediction unit” can be found in at least Figs. 2-6 and corresponding paragraphs [0080-0083] & [0088-0096]. This is to be the structure and algorithm required for the claim, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-13
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (device), 8 (method), and dependent claims 2-7, and 9-13, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e. machine) and claim 8 is directed to a method (i.e. process).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite detecting crises performed by a crisis detection device that predicts a possible crisis for each industry, comprising: redefining the meanings of crisis and crisis detection for each industry; analyzing literature on the crisis and the crisis detection that have been redefined; creating a crisis detection model based on the momentum theory reflecting the trend of a crisis index and the crisis index up-side risk reflecting volatility, considering the analysis results; and predicting crises for each industry using the crisis detection model (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are detecting crisis and predicting crisis for industries using a crisis detection model, which is managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are predicting crisis for industries using a crisis detection model, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are detecting crisis and predicting crisis for industries using a crisis detection model by redefining the meanings of crisis and crisis detection for each industry; analyzing literature on the crisis and the crisis detection; creating a crisis detection model based on the momentum theory reflecting the trend of a crisis index and the crisis index up-side risk reflecting volatility, which are observations, judgments, evaluations, and opinions of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are predicting crisis for industries using a crisis detection model, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
Dependent claims 4-6 and 11-12 recite the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts because the claims limitations are calculating a normalized momentum value with a probability of an increase in crisis index based on the momentum theory; averaging the normalized momentum value and the value of the crisis index up-side risk; and applying the crisis index to the crisis detection model in order to predict crises in periods, which are Mathematical Equations and Calculations per as-filed Specification paragraphs [0090-0091]. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are predicting crisis for industries using a crisis detection model using calculated momentum values and applied crisis index, which recite the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts.
In addition, dependent claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, and 13 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the redefining of crisis meanings; analyzing literature; and using the crisis detection model to analyze the background of the time point when the trend of the past crisis index changed suddenly. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior, interactions, and relationships as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the claimed “A crisis detection device, comprising: a definition setting unit; a document analysis unit; a model creation unit; a crisis prediction unit” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). In addition, dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 further narrow the abstract idea.
The claimed “A crisis detection device, comprising: a definition setting unit; a document analysis unit; a model creation unit; a crisis prediction unit” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 8-13; and device claims 1-7 recite “A crisis detection device, comprising: a definition setting unit; a document analysis unit; a model creation unit; a crisis prediction unit”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs [0132-0133] and Figures 1-3 & 32. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
In addition, claims 2-7 and 9-13 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14
Step 1: Independent claims 14 (system), respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 14 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claim recites detecting crises, comprising: a document providing device that provides literature related to crisis indices for each industry and domestic/foreign crisis detection and literature related to the momentum theory that reflects the trend of crisis indices and the crisis index up-side risk that reflects volatility; a crisis detection device that analyzes the provided literature, creates a crisis detection model based on the analysis results, and detects crises for each industry using the crisis detection model that has been created; and a user terminal that receives information on the detected crises for each industry and outputs the received information in order to allow a user to prepare for the crises, wherein the crisis detection device includes: a definition setting unit that redefines the meanings of crisis and crisis detection for each industry; a document analysis unit that analyzes literature on the crisis and the crisis detection that have been redefined; a model creation unit that creates the crisis detection model based on the momentum theory and the crisis index up-side risk, considering the analysis results; and a crisis prediction unit that predicts crises for each industry using the crisis detection model (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claim recites the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are detecting crisis and predicting crisis for industries using a crisis detection model, which is managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are predicting crisis for industries using a crisis detection model, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claim recites the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are detecting crisis and predicting crisis for industries using a crisis detection model by redefining the meanings of crisis and crisis detection for each industry; analyzing literature on the crisis and the crisis detection; creating a crisis detection model based on the momentum theory reflecting the trend of a crisis index and the crisis index up-side risk reflecting volatility, which are observations, judgments, evaluations, and opinions of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are predicting crisis for industries using a crisis detection model, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “provides literature related to crisis indices for each industry and domestic/foreign crisis detection and literature related to the momentum theory that reflects the trend of crisis indices and the crisis index up-side risk that reflects volatility; receives information on the detected crises for each industry and outputs the received information in order to allow a user to prepare for the crises” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A system; a document providing device; a crisis detection device; a user terminal; a definition setting unit; a document analysis unit; a model creation unit; a crisis prediction unit” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A system; a document providing device; a crisis detection device; a user terminal; a definition setting unit; a document analysis unit; a model creation unit; a crisis prediction unit” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, system claim 14 recites “A system; a document providing device; a crisis detection device; a user terminal; a definition setting unit; a document analysis unit; a model creation unit; a crisis prediction unit”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs [0132-0133] and Figures 1-3 & 32. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “provides literature related to crisis indices for each industry and domestic/foreign crisis detection and literature related to the momentum theory that reflects the trend of crisis indices and the crisis index up-side risk that reflects volatility; receives information on the detected crises for each industry and outputs the received information in order to allow a user to prepare for the crises” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar (U.S 2022/0292524 A1) in view of Guzman (U.S 11,080,789 B1).
Claims 1 and 8
Regarding Claim 1, Sarkar discloses the following:
A crisis detection device, comprising [see at least Paragraph 0021 for reference to a computer system functioning as an electronic risk monitoring and assessment tool implementing methods to monitor and recalculate business financial risk due to market changes; Paragraph 0022 for reference to monitoring and calculating the credit worthiness or financial risk of a customer or entity, according to one embodiment, risk assessment tool 100 is a computer system, a computing device, a mobile device, or a server configured to run risk assessment software applications and models; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 100 ‘computing device’]
a definition setting unit that redefines the meanings of crisis and crisis detection for each industry [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to retrieving the industry classification for the primary entity and their core businesses wherein data sources to investigate and extract the industry classification include Dow Jones Company search API, Dun & Bradstreet; Paragraph 0037 for reference to standards, for example NAICS, UK SIC 2003, D & B 9 standard Industry Code, etc., to classify an entity's businesses into categories; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 210 ‘Initial Entry Analysis’ including item 204 ‘Extract Industry Classification(s)’]
a document analysis unit that analyzes literature on the crisis and the crisis detection that have been redefined [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to the input data for data ingestion module 165 comprises parties, accounts, transactions, financial information, credit ratings, news stories, etc.; Paragraph 0038 for reference to monitoring news feeds and at 230 calculating an industry confidence score; Paragraph 0039 for reference to at 405 news feeds are received by the system, and at 410 detect market and/or industry changes and at 420 extract features of the change, for example in the industry, by geographic location, etc.; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 165 ‘data ingestion module’; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 220 ‘Monitor News feed’; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 405 ‘Receive News Feeds’, item 410 ‘Detect Market/Industry Changes’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 505 ‘News Feeds’]
a model creation unit that creates a crisis detection model, considering the analysis results [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the Governance Platform can contain and call up one or more models to process and analyze the data and provide associated calculations and scores for review by an analyst; Paragraph 0032 for reference to include and invoke supervised (or unsupervised) machine learning (ML) techniques through, for example, ML Model 175, for assessing credit worthiness, calculating confidence scores, and/or accessing business risk; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 170 ‘Governance Platform’ and item 175 ‘ML Model’; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 685 ‘Regression Model’; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 885 ‘Regression Model’
a crisis prediction unit that predicts crises for each industry using the crisis detection model [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to analyst API analyst reviews the reports and/or scores and in an embodiment can provide feedback information on the risk; Paragraph 0044 for reference to algorithm in final score module 640 can take many different forms, but preferably it provides a score indicative of the health of the industry or industries in which the targeted entity participates; Paragraph 0053 for reference to the system can continuously monitor the change in industry confidence score and company confidence score and generate alerts for targeted entities; Paragraph 0053 for reference to it any deviation is detected in the company's industry or the company's performance (e.g., the company's confidence score), then the system can generate alerts in appropriate circumstances , and in an aspect can flag the articles which generated or resulted in the abrupt change in the industry confidence score or the targeted entity confidence score; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 195 ‘API Analyst’; Figure 6 and related text regarding ‘final score module’]
While Sarkar discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose a model creation unit that creates a crisis detection model based on the momentum theory reflecting the trend of a crisis index and the crisis index up-side risk (CIUR) reflecting volatility.
However, Guzman discloses the following:
a model creation unit that creates a crisis detection model based on the momentum theory reflecting the trend of a crisis index and the crisis index up-side risk (CIUR) reflecting volatility [see at least Col 7 lines 9-11 for reference to indicators being constructed using price data on securities, from which returns and correlations over a certain period of time are calculated; Col 7 lines 38-49 for reference to price data including style factors lines momentum; Col 8 lines 64-67 for reference to indicators being tested against various types of historical data by means of econometric models including General Method of Moments and Maximum Likelihood Estimate etc.; Col 9 lines 24-26 for reference to conducting scenario analysis for how the level of correlation risk would change in a portfolio with the addition or deletion of holdings; Col 9 lines 53-58 for reference to analysis platform for statistical and econometric models combining correlation data with economic and financial historical and real-time data sources to generate parameter estimates and make forecasts of future values of portfolio assets, correlations, economic or financial data or predict asset returns; Col 20 lines 3-4 for reference to a scenario analysis module to determine portfolio impact of changes in correlation to risk; Figure 3 and related text regarding a graphical display of a correlation risk index including calculating and displaying correlation risk trends over time]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the model creation unit Sarkar to include the momentum determination and modeling of Guzman. Doing so could forecast future outcomes and predict future values of various economic or financial conditions, quantities, or states, or asset prices, as stated Guzman (Col 9 lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 8, Sarker teaches a method of detecting crises [Paragraph 0019 & Figures 2, 4, 6, and 8]. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Sarkar and Guzman.
Claims 2 and 9
While the combination of Sarkar and Guzman disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 2, Sarkar discloses the following:
wherein the definition setting unit redefines the crisis as a phenomenon in which a crisis index rises due to internal and external changes in each industry and the crisis detection as a phenomenon in which the crisis index rapidly rises above a preset reference value [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to calculating or generating the impact on the confidence score as a result of the change and it is determined whether the impact score, e.g., the confidence score or negative news score, is above a threshold; Paragraph 0039 for reference to threshold can be preselected, predetermined, programmed and/or manually set and reset as desired; Paragraph 0047 for reference to impact score is calculated for all the entities that participate in the industry that was impacted by the negative news; Paragraph 0053 for reference to the system can continuously monitor the change in industry confidence score and company confidence score and generate alerts for targeted entities; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 440 ‘Generate Impact Score’ and item 450 ‘Is Impact Score Above Threshold?’]
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 10
While the combination of Sarkar and Guzman disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 3, Sarkar discloses the following:
wherein the document analysis unit analyzes literature related to at least one of the status of research on the development of crisis detection models at the national project level, the status of research on variables affecting crisis detection at the corporate level, the status of research on the development of crisis detection models at the corporate level, overseas prior research on crisis prediction models the momentum theory, and the crisis index up-side risk [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to the input data for data ingestion module 165 comprises parties, accounts, transactions, financial information, credit ratings, news stories, etc.; Paragraph 0037 for reference to specific news or events that are likely to change the risk or business health of a particular or given entity are watched, reviewed, and/or extracted; Paragraph 0038 for reference to monitoring news feeds; Paragraph 0039 for reference to at 405 news feeds are received by the system, and at 410 detect market and/or industry changes and at 420 extract features of the change, for example in the industry, by geographic location, etc.; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 165 ‘data ingestion module’; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 220 ‘Monitor News feed’; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 405 ‘Receive News Feeds’, item 410 ‘Detect Market/Industry Changes’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 505 ‘News Feeds’]
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 11
While the combination of Sarkar and Guzman disclose the limitations above, Sarkar does not disclose wherein the model creation unit calculates a normalized momentum value with a probability of an increase in a crisis index based on the momentum theory, uses the crisis index up-side risk to calculate the value of the crisis index up- side risk focusing on the volatility of the past six periods, and creates the crisis detection model based on the normalized momentum value and the value of the crisis index up-side risk.
Regarding Claim 4, Guzman discloses the following:
wherein the model creation unit calculates a normalized momentum value with a probability of an increase in a crisis index based on the momentum theory [see at least Col 7 lines 9-11 for reference to indicators being constructed using price data on securities, from which returns and correlations over a certain period of time are calculated; Col 7 lines 38-49 for reference to price data including style factors lines momentum; Col 18 lines 20-22 for reference to the processing node cleaning, transforming, normalizing, and preparing indicator data for analysis]
uses the crisis index up-side risk to calculate the value of the crisis index up- side risk focusing on the volatility of the past six periods [see at least Col 20 lines 15-18 for reference to the system displaying how correlation risk concerning any user-configurable collection of securities or assets trends over a user-configurable time period; Col 33 lines 52-55 for reference to the system creating a time series of the eigenvector loadings pertaining to the first principal component , over the six month time period during which the principal components were calculated]
creates the crisis detection model based on the normalized momentum value and the value of the crisis index up-side risk [see at least Col 8 lines 64-67 for reference to indicators being tested against various types of historical data by means of econometric models including General Method of Moments and Maximum Likelihood Estimate etc.; Col 9 lines 24-26 for reference to conducting scenario analysis for how the level of correlation risk would change in a portfolio with the addition or deletion of holdings; Col 9 lines 53-58 for reference to analysis platform for statistical and econometric models combining correlation data with economic and financial historical and real-time data sources to generate parameter estimates and make forecasts of future values of portfolio assets, correlations, economic or financial data or predict asset returns; Col 20 lines 3-4 for reference to a scenario analysis module to determine portfolio impact of changes in correlation to risk; Figure 3 and related text regarding a graphical display of a correlation risk index including calculating and displaying correlation risk trends over time]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the model creation unit Sarkar to include the momentum determination and modeling of Guzman. Doing so could forecast future outcomes and predict future values of various economic or financial conditions, quantities, or states, or asset prices, as stated Guzman (Col 9 lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5
While the combination of Sarkar and Guzman disclose the limitations above, Sarkar does not disclose wherein the model creation unit generates the crisis detection model by averaging the normalized momentum value and the value of the crisis index up-side risk.
Regarding Claim 5, Guzman discloses the following:
wherein the model creation unit generates the crisis detection model by averaging the normalized momentum value and the value of the crisis index up-side risk [see at least Col 7 lines 11-15 for reference to the system calculating the index using a weighted average whereby the weights can be arbitrarily assigned; Col 7 lines data used to determine the index including properties of data over time such as a moving average]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the model creation unit Sarkar to include the averaging of values and modeling of Guzman. Doing so could forecast future outcomes and predict future values of various economic or financial conditions, quantities, or states, or asset prices, as stated Guzman (Col 9 lines 32-36).
Claim 6 and 12
While the combination of Sarkar and Guzman disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 6, Sarkar discloses the following:
wherein the crisis prediction unit applies the crisis index to the crisis detection model in order to predict crises in the period after period t, period t+1, and period t+2 [see at least Paragraph 0041 for reference to data located and extracted suing the search strings and lexicons can be filtered from time periods; Paragraph 0053 for reference to periodic investigations can be run on a set schedule, for example every quarter, or at any desired time including manually by a user]
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 13
While the combination of Sarkar and Guzman disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 7, Sarkar discloses the following:
wherein the crisis prediction unit uses the crisis detection model to analyze the background of the time point when the trend of the past crisis index changed suddenly and further uses the results of the analysis to predict the crisis [see at least Paragraph 0053 for reference to the system can continuously monitor the change in industry confidence score and company confidence score and generate alerts for targeted entities; Paragraph 0053 for reference to it any deviation is detected in the company's industry or the company's performance (e.g., the company's confidence score), then the system can generate alerts in appropriate circumstances, and in an aspect can flag the articles which generated or resulted in the abrupt change in the industry confidence score or the targeted entity confidence score]
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, Sarkar discloses the following:
A system for detecting crises, comprising [see at least Paragraph 0021 for reference to a computer system functioning as an electronic risk monitoring and assessment tool implementing methods to monitor and recalculate business financial risk due to market changes; Paragraph 0022 for reference to monitoring and calculating the credit worthiness or financial risk of a customer or entity, according to one embodiment, risk assessment tool 100 is a computer system, a computing device, a mobile device, or a server configured to run risk assessment software applications and models; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 100 ‘computing device’]
a document providing device that provides literature related to crisis indices for each industry and domestic/foreign crisis detection and literature related to the momentum theory that reflects the trend of crisis indices and the crisis index up-side risk that reflects volatility [see at least Paragraph 0023 for reference to electronic transactions may be stored in a database 130A with associated financial and entity information and news and related stories can be stored in database; Paragraph 0029 for reference to captured and stored data can include but is not limited to : parties, accounts, transactions, relationships, financial data, news articles, and associated metadata obtained from transactions and data stored in the electronic databases; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 130A ‘ENTITY/FINANCIAL’ and item 130B ‘NEWS’]
a crisis detection device that analyzes the provided literature, creates a crisis detection model based on the analysis results, and detects crises for each industry using the crisis detection model that has been created [see at least Paragraph 0022 for reference to monitoring and calculating the credit worthiness or financial risk of a customer or entity, according to one embodiment, risk assessment tool 100 is a computer system, a computing device, a mobile device, or a server configured to run risk assessment software applications and models; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 100 ‘computing device’]
a user terminal that receives information on the detected crises for each industry and outputs the received information in order to allow a user to prepare for the crises [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to the network interface being configured to transmit and receive data or information to and from a web-site sever; Paragraph 0026 for reference to the network interface utilizing wireless technologies and communication protocols that allows computing device to transmit information to or receive information from the server; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 120 ‘website server’ and 156 ‘network interface’]
wherein the crisis detection device includes: a definition setting unit that redefines the meanings of crisis and crisis detection for each industry [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to retrieving the industry classification for the primary entity and their core businesses wherein data sources to investigate and extract the industry classification include Dow Jones Company search API, Dun & Bradstreet; Paragraph 0037 for reference to standards, for example NAICS, UK SIC 2003, D & B9 standard Industry Code, etc., to classify an entity's businesses into categories; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 210 ‘Initial Entry Analysis’ including item 204 ‘Extract Industry Classification(s)’]
a document analysis unit that analyzes literature on the crisis and the crisis detection that have been redefined [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to the input data for data ingestion module 165 comprises parties, accounts, transactions, financial information, credit ratings, news stories, etc.; Paragraph 0038 for reference to monitoring news feeds and at 230 calculating an industry confidence score; Paragraph 0039 for reference to at 405 news feeds are received by the system, and at 410 detect market and/or industry changes and at 420 extract features of the change, for example in the industry, by geographic location, etc.; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 165 ‘data ingestion module’; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 220 ‘Monitor News feed’; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 405 ‘Receive News Feeds’, item 410 ‘Detect Market/Industry Changes’; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 505 ‘News Feeds’]
a model creation unit that creates the crisis detection model, considering the analysis results [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the Governance Platform can contain and call up one or more models to process and analyze the data and provide associated calculations and scores for review by an analyst; Paragraph 0032 for reference to include and invoke supervised (or unsupervised) machine learning (ML) techniques through, for example, ML Model 175, for assessing credit worthiness, calculating confidence scores, and/or accessing business risk; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 170 ‘Governance Platform’ and item 175 ‘ML Model’; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 685 ‘Regression Model’; Figure 8 and related text regarding item 885 ‘Regression Model’]
a crisis prediction unit that predicts crises for each industry using the crisis detection model [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to analyst API analyst reviews the reports and/or scores and in an embodiment can provide feedback information on the risk; Paragraph 0044 for reference to algorithm in final score module 640 can take many different forms, but preferably it provides a score indicative of the health of the industry or industries in which the targeted entity participates; Paragraph 0053 for reference to the system can continuously monitor the change in industry confidence score and company confidence score and generate alerts for targeted entities; Paragraph 0053 for reference to it any deviation is detected in the company's industry or the company's performance (e.g., the company's confidence score), then the system can generate alerts in appropriate circumstances, and in an aspect can flag the articles which generated or resulted in the abrupt change in the industry confidence score or the targeted entity confidence score; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 195 ‘API Analyst’; Figure 6 and related text regarding ‘final score module’]
While Sarkar discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose a model creation unit that creates a crisis detection model based on the momentum theory and the crisis index up-side risk.
However, Guzman discloses the following:
a model creation unit that creates a crisis detection model based on the momentum theory and the crisis index up-side risk [see at least Col 7 lines 9-11 for reference to indicators being constructed using price data on securities, from which returns and correlations over a certain period of time are calculated; Col 7 lines 38-49 for reference to price data including style factors lines momentum; Col 8 lines 64-67 for reference to indicators being tested against various types of historical data by means of econometric models including General Method of Moments and Maximum Likelihood Estimate etc.; Col 9 lines 24-26 for reference to conducting scenario analysis for how the level of correlation risk would change in a portfolio with the addition or deletion of holdings; Col 9 lines 53-58 for reference to analysis platform for statistical and econometric models combining correlation data with economic and financial historical and real-time data sources to generate parameter estimates and make forecasts of future values of portfolio assets, correlations, economic or financial data or predict asset returns; Col 20 lines 3-4 for reference to a scenario analysis module to determine portfolio impact of changes in correlation to risk; Figure 3 and related text regarding a graphical display of a correlation risk index including calculating and displaying correlation risk trends over time]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the model creation unit Sarkar to include the momentum determination and modeling of Guzman. Doing so could forecast future outcomes and predict future values of various economic or financial conditions, quantities, or states, or asset prices, as stated Guzman (Col 9 lines 32-36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sehgal, Sanjay, and Asheesh Pandey. "Predicting financial crisis by examining risk-return relationship." Theoretical Economics Letters 8.1 (2018): 48-71.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 11,132,748 B2
Leidner et al.
Method And Apparatus For Risk Mining
KR 102350534 B1
Disaster prediction system and method using major keyword analysis technology of artificial intelligence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights