DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1,4,6-8,11,13-15,18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 1 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 8 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 15 recites a product (apparatus), which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claim 1, 8 and 15 recite a method, comprising: monitoring, by a computer program, a chat interface between a customer and a sales representative for transactions, wherein each transaction identifies a type of the tradable asset transaction, a client identifier, a tradable asset being traded, and a monetary currency for the tradable asset; extracting, by the computer program, data from the chat interface using a named entity recognition model; updating, by the computer program, a heterogeneous graph with data from the tradable asset transactions, wherein the heterogeneous graph identifies a plurality of tradable assets and a plurality of clients by: mapping, by the computer program, asset features to asset nodes in the heterogeneous graph; removing, by the computer program, nodes for the asset features from the heterogeneous graph; mapping, by the computer program, neighbor nodes that are connected to client nodes to the client node; and removing, by the computer program, edges between the neighbor nodes and the client node; training, by the computer program, a graph model with the heterogeneous graph; querying, by the computer program, the graph model with one of the plurality of tradable assets, wherein the graph model returns a recommendation that identifies a subset of the plurality of clients for the tradable asset; and outputting, by the computer program, the recommendation. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, such as business relations or sales activities. Also, the claim limitations are managing interactions between people, such as following instructions. The claims are also a mental process, capable of being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Lastly, the claims are a fundamental economic activity, such as trading. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer program, system, electronic device, computer processor, non-transitory computer readable storage medium with instructions, and chat interface. The additional elements of a computer program, system, electronic device, computer processor, non-transitory computer readable storage medium with instructions, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a chat interface are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, for the particular technology of Graphical User Interfaces (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a computer program, system, electronic device, computer processor, non-transitory computer readable storage medium with instructions, and chat interface) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of GUI’s to judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 4 recites wherein each tradable asset transaction further identifies a parent company for the tradable asset, a sector for the tradable asset, a country for the tradable asset, a rating for the tradable asset, and/or a maturity for the tradable asset. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites further comprising: ranking, the subset of the plurality of clients based on a probability of how likely each of the clients is to trade the tradable asset. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer program are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above.
Claim 7 recites wherein the probability is further based on a trading history of each client. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer program are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above.
Claim 11 recites wherein each tradable asset transaction further identifies a parent company for the tradable asset, a sector for the tradable asset, a country for the tradable asset, a rating for the tradable asset, and/or a maturity for the tradable asset. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 8, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 8, supra.
Claim 13 recites computer program is further configured to rank the subset of the plurality of clients based on a probability of how likely each of the clients is to trade the tradable asset. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of the computer program are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 1 analysis above.
Claim 14 recites wherein the probability is further based on a trading history of each client. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 8, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 8, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein each tradable asset transaction further identifies a parent company for the tradable asset, a sector for the tradable asset, a country for the tradable asset, a rating for the tradable asset, and/or a maturity for the tradable asset. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage medium are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 15 analysis above.
Claim 20 recites further including instructions stored thereon, which when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform steps comprising: ranking the subset of the plurality of clients based on a probability of how likely each of the clients is to trade the tradable asset, wherein the probability is further based on a trading history of each client. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 15, and the additional elements of the non-transitory computer readable storage medium are addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B as just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as in the claim 15 analysis above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The application attempts to solve the problem where sales teams filter assets using criteria such as maturity, rating, sector, and currency, then build lists of clients to receive recommendations, which is currently inefficient and depends heavily on human effort. The claims address the need for a more automated way to determine which clients should receive which asset recommendations. The invention solves the problem by converting transaction and chat data into a heterogeneous graph and then using a graph model to learn relationships between assets and clients (Applicant specification, Para. 0028-0036). The model is trained on graph structure plus feature data, so it can predict which clients are likely to trade a given asset. Recommendations are then generated by querying the model with an asset and ranking the resulting client candidates by likelihood, making client targeting more automated and data-driven.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claims are integrated into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the monitoring, with a messaging interface for transactions, and extracting data for the messaging interface using a named recognition model, and updating a heterogeneous graph with data from the transactions, where the heterogenous graph identifies a plurality of assets and a plurality of clients,” together recite a meaningful way of using the alleged judicial exception. The currently recited steps are an attempt to invoke a technical improvement, which is recited at a high level of abstraction and does not recite a technological solution sufficient to integrate the abstract idea.
Applicant also argues Claim 1 recites a technical improvement in the manner that tradeable asset transactions are identified – as they are identified in a communication between a customer and sales rep. Thus, the computer receives data based on the communication link and uses the data to update the heterogeneous graph, which is then used to train a graph model. Examiner disagrees, as this appears to be a business solution to a business problem of communication between customer and sales rep, and not a technical solution. The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. More specifically, the claims are limited to a business solution to a technical problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights