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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-27 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 112
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is amended with the limitation, “receiving by a processor real-time transaction data from a distributed database to derive scalar values”, “creating, by the processor, a specific data structure that generalizes imprecisely known inputs”, “using the Interval Type-2 membership Functions literately updated in c to illustrate the corresponding Interval Type-2 Membership Functions as an updated output fair market value of credit default swaps”, and “specifically restructure contract obligations”, but these limitations do not have support in the original specification. As such, these limitations are not given patentable weight. Claims 2-26 are also rejected for their dependency of claim 1.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards estimating a Fair Market Value (FMV) of credit default swap (CDS). The concept is clearly related to managing transactions between people, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Moreover, the process of calculating FMV of CDS involve mathematical calculations, thus the present claims fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping. Furthermore, the process of calculating FMV of CDS can be performed in the human mind, thus the present claims also fall within the Mental Processes grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in claims 21-27, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-27 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, and claims 21-27 are directed to a machine.
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards estimating a Fair Market Value (FMV) of credit default swap (CDS). The concept comprises deriving scalar values for the FMV using precise knowledge input, generalizing imprecisely known inputs using interval-2 (IT2) membership functions (MF), calculating a set of IT2 MFs, using the IT2 MFs to calculate corresponding IT2 MF of the MF. The concept is related to managing transactions between people, since a credit default swap is a contract between two parties. Thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Moreover, the process of calculating FMV of CDS involve mathematical calculations, thus the present claims fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping. Furthermore, the process of calculating FMV of CDS can be performed in the human mind, thus the present claims also fall within the Mental Processes grouping. The performance of the limitations using generic computer components (i.e., a processor, a memory, and a storage device) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping or mental processes grouping. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Claims 1-20 recite a computerized processing and data storage means as additional element. The entire method recited in these claims can be performed mentally, and the amended generic computer elements are merely extra-solution. Independent claim 21 recites a processor, a display device, a storage device, and a memory. Independent claim 24 recites a processor, a network, a storage device, and a memory. Dependent claims 22-23 and 25-27 do not recite any other additional element. These additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as performing calculation, displaying result, and transmitting data over network. The computer elements are clearly extra-solution. The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computers. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Rather, the present claims implement an abstract concept using existing computer technology in a networked computer environment. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, claims 1-20 do not recite any additional element. The entire method recited in these claims can be performed mentally, and the claims do not mention any computer at all. Independent claim 21 recites a processor, a display device, a storage device, and a memory. Independent claim 24 recites a processor, a network, a storage device, and a memory. Dependent claims 22-23 and 25-27 do not recite any other additional element. These additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as performing calculation, displaying result, and transmitting data over network. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupien et al. (WO 2009/132243 A1), in view of Zhao et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0012859) and Lupien’068 (Pub. No.: US 2011/0131068).
As per claim 1, Lupien teaches a computer-implemented method for estimating a fair market value of credit default swap as a financial instrument using a computerized processing and data storage means comprising:
a. deriving scalar values for the fair market value using precise knowledge inputs (see paragraph 0026, “it is desirable to provide investors a guideline for determining the rational fair market value (FMV) of their investment because it promotes the liquidity of the investment in the market”; see paragraph 0035, “Traditional financial analysis such as the above assumes precise knowledge of the parameter values involved in the various formulas”; and paragraph 0067, “the previously described mathematics are applied to these delayed production dividends to calculate an interval Type-2 representation of fair market value, which may then be type-reduced and defuzzified to arrive at a scalar value of the dividend, or alternatively may be used as the basis for negotiating an agreed dividend with the issuer of the financial instrument”);
b. generalizing imprecisely known inputs using Interval Type-2 Membership Functions (see paragraph 0037-0042, “A key feature of interval 2 membership functions is that they are completely specified by their (Type-1) upper and lower membership functions, which are respective upper and lower bounding functions of their footprint of uncertainty”; see paragraph 0047, “The compelling advantage of this further generalization is that the multiple intervals so obtained can then be aggregated into a much richer description of imprecision in the input variables provided by interval Type-2 fuzzy membership functions”; see paragraph 0060, “the approach of the present invention allows the inherent imprecision regarding these probabilities to be factored into the dividend calculations);
c. calculating a set of Interval Type-2 Membership Functions for these various inputs using interval data provided by subject matter experts om a technical field (see paragraph 0045-0046, “multiple interval values may result from polling a plurality of expert panels, each panel comprises of a plurality of experts in the same or related fields, to obtain their collective assessment of interval estimates of the interval estimates of the input variables”; see paragraph 0047, “One can then compute a corresponding interval Type-2 fuzzy membership function”; see paragraph 0058, “The preferred input variable Type-2 membership functions can be extracted by polling multiple experts for simple interval inputs, and then aggregating these intervals into Type-2 membership functions using a variety of techniques”; also see paragraph 0056, 0059-0061, and 0067); and
d. using the Interval Type-2 Membership Functions calculated in c. to illustrate the corresponding Interval Type-2 Membership Functions of the fair market value and store in a computing system in order to generate a result in real-time (see paragraph 0067, “the previously described mathematics are applied to these delayed production dividend to calculate an interval Type-2 representation of fair market value”; generating result of calculation and storing result are implied functions of any off-the-shelf computers),
where this fair market value Interval Type-2 Membership Functions accounts for the uncertainties and imprecise knowledge of all the factors involved in the credit default swap (see paragraph 0035, “One approach to generalizing these formulas is to assume these parameters are random variables, assign each of them an appropriate probability density function to represent the uncertainty in their values”; see paragraph 0040, “a Type-2 membership function is characterized by a ‘footprint of uncertainty’”; also see paragraph 0030 for CDS).
Examiner notes Lupien does not teach training a processing tool to compute a calculation for a set of Interval Type-2 Membership Functions.
Zhao teaches training a processing tool to compute a calculation for a set of Interval Type-2 Membership Functions (see paragraph 0091, For the parallel multi-layer decomposed interval type-2 intuitionistic fuzzy conventional neural network model (parallel classifier)”; see claim 5, “establishing a decider training dataset…denotes a number of samples in the decider training dataset…denotes an output from the ith parallel multi-layer decomposed interval type-2 intuitionistic fuzzy convolutional neural network”; prior art teaches training neural network to compute calculation for a set of Interval Type-2 Membership Functions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lupien with teaching from Zhao to include training a processing tool to compute a calculation for a set of Interval Type-2 Membership Functions. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., using trained neural network or machine learning to perform calculation) to a known method (i.e., estimating a fair market value of credit default swap) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., replace human processing to speed up calculation).
Examiner further notes the combination of Lupien and Zhao does not teach illustrative alpha-cut intervals generate the fair market value Interval Type-2 Membership Functions.
Lupien’068 teaches illustrative alpha-cut intervals generate the fair market value Interval Type-2 Membership Functions (see paragraph 0054, “Desirably there are m (the number of alpha-cuts) pairs of intervals for each membership function, and the computation of each alpha-cut interval…of the dividend membership function is preferably carried out using the corresponding set of alpha-cut intervals of the input variables”; also see paragraph 0026, 0057, and 0064-0067 for calculating fair market value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the combination of Lupien and Zhao with teaching from Lupien’068 to include illustrative alpha-cut intervals generate the fair market value Interval Type-2 Membership Functions. The modification would have been obvious, because it is merely applying a known technique (i.e., using alpha-cut intervals to generate fair market value interval type 2 membership functions) to a known method (i.e., estimating a fair market value of credit default swap) ready to provide predictable result (i.e., use known mathematical technique to generate result).
As per claim 2, Lupien teaches wherein the precise knowledge input is a fundamental parameter based on knowledge of one or more input parameters (see paragraph 0038).
As per claim 3, Lupien teaches wherein the Interval Type-2 Membership Functions capture both primary and secondary imprecision inherent to the inputs (see paragraph 0036-0039).
As per claim 4, Lupien teaches wherein higher-order fuzzy membership functions and their corresponding computations are used in steps b., c. and d. (see paragraph 0039-0042).
As per claim 5, Lupien teaches wherein the fundamental input parameter value incorporates multiple subject matter experts interval estimates (see paragraph 0047).
As per claim 6, Lupien teaches wherein the calculations are based on Interval Type-2 Membership Functions that combine the primary and secondary uncertainty of each parameter value (see paragraph 0035, 0040-0041, 0052, and 0056).
As per claim 7, Lupien teaches wherein interval type-2 fuzzy membership functions are reduced to a corresponding interval range whose midpoint provides a notional scalar value by type-reduction (see paragraph 0057, “the centroid interval can be defuzzified by calculating its midpoint, which results in a scalar value for the dividend”; also see paragraph 0062).
As per claim 8, Lupien teaches wherein the type-reduction of the fair market value Interval Type-2 Membership Functions to an interval range is used in transaction negotiations to arrive at a final valuation for the financial instrument (see paragraph 0057-0058 and 0067).
As per claim 9, Lupien teaches wherein the type-reduction of the fair market value Interval Type-2 Membership Functions to an interval range is used by accountants, appraisers, or bankers for advising and financing the buyers or sellers of credit default swaps (see paragraph 0011 and 0030, Examiner points out that this feature is not a technical feature, thus it does not carry patentable weight).
As per claim 10, Lupien teaches wherein the financial instrument is a credit default swap valuation technique used for bonds and collateralized debt obligations (see paragraph 0011 and 0030).
As per claim 11, Lupien teaches wherein the credit default swap is ascribed a notional value (see paragraph 0033-0034).
As per claim 12, Lupien teaches wherein the credit default swap is based on a contingent stream of payments of buyers or sellers trading over-the-counter by investment banks or insurance companies, institutions such as sovereign wealth funds, state pension funds and other investment funds holding debt portfolios (see paragraph 0031-0034).
As per claim 13, Lupien teaches wherein the credit default swap is ascribed a notional value (see paragraph 0033-0034).
As per claim 14, Lupien teaches wherein the notional value is applied to options pricing (see paragraph 0026 and 0033).
As per claim 15, Lupien teaches wherein the credit default swap further includes a Black-Scholes model for evaluating a contingent stream of payments (see paragraph 0026).
As per claim 16, Lupien teaches wherein the credit default swap further includes extensions of the Black-Scholes model, for example the binomial pricing model (see paragraph 0026).
As per claim 17, Lupien teaches wherein the credit default swap provides a discounted price (see paragraph 0028, 0031, and 0033-0034).
As per claim 18, Lupien teaches wherein the credit default swap provides no discounted price (see paragraph 0028, 0031, and 0033-0034).
As per claim 19, Lupien teaches wherein the credit default swap is specified over a defined lifetime or for a variable period (see paragraph 0018, Examiner points out that this feature is not a technical feature, thus it does not carry patentable weight).
As per claim 20, Lupien teaches the CDS provides a specific upfront payment per unit used as a negotiated value (see paragraph 0030-0034).
As per claim 21, Lupien teaches a computer for assessing a fair market value payment stream for a credit default swap comprising:
a. a processor; b. a display device having a graphical representation of the fair market value Interval Type-2 Membership Functions which account for the uncertainties and imprecise knowledge of all the factors involved in the credit default swaps; c. a storage device connected to the processor; and d. a memory, the memory comprising software instructions, the software instructions comprising instructions for (see claim 1, “(a) a computerized processing means for computerized processing and storage of data; (b) said computerized processing means including a means to calculate a fair market value of said financial product…output means displays a graphical representation of said present value of said financial product”):
estimating the Interval Type-2 Membership Functions of a fair market value for a contingent payment stream for a credit default swap of claim 1 (see paragraph 0047, “One can then compute a corresponding interval Type-2 fuzzy membership function”; also see paragraph 0056, 0059-0061, and 0067, “to calculate an interval Type-2 representation of fair market value”);
ii. type-reducing the Interval Type-2 Membership Functions to a negotiation interval (see paragraph 0057, “the centroid interval can be defuzzified by calculating its midpoint, which results in a scalar value for the dividend”; also see paragraph 0062 and 0067, “to calculate an interval Type-2 representation of fair market value, which may then be type-reduced and defuzzied to arrive at a scalar value”);
iii. calculating the midpoint of the negotiation interval as a notional scalar fair market value (see paragraph 0067, “to calculate an interval Type-2 representation of fair market value, which may then be type-reduced and defuzzied to arrive at a scalar value”); and
iv. displaying these results on the display device to show the expected fair market value Interval Type-2 Membership Functions and its derived components in ii. and iii (see claim 1, “output means whereby the output means displays a graphical representation of said present value of said financial product”).
where the computer provides the fair market value to account for the uncertainties and imprecise knowledge of all the factors involved in the credit default swap (see paragraph 0035, “One approach to generalizing these formulas is to assume these parameters are random variables, assign each of them an appropriate probability density function to represent the uncertainty in their values”; see paragraph 0040, “a Type-2 membership function is characterized by a ‘footprint of uncertainty’”; also see paragraph 0030 for CDS).
As per claim 22, Lupien teaches where the computer displays the fair market value for a contingent payment stream (see claim 1, “output means whereby the output means displays a graphical representation of said present value of said financial product”).
As per claim 23, Lupien teaches where the computer display for the credit default swap is selected from the group consisting of spread payments, swapping rights, and combinations thereof (see claim 1, “output means whereby the output means displays a graphical representation of said present value of said financial product”).
As per claim 24, Lupien teaches a server for estimating the fair market value payment stream for a credit default swap comprising:
a. a processor; b. a network to which the processor is connected; c. a storage device connected to the processor; and d. a memory, the memory comprising software instructions, the software instructions comprising instructions for (see claim 1, “(a) a computerized processing means for computerized processing and storage of data; (b) said computerized processing means including a means to calculate a fair market value of said financial product…(d) a coupling means for the transmission of said fair market value of said financial product”):
receiving over the network information related to the calculation of the fair market value of a contingent payment stream for the credit default swap having various using interval data provided by subject matter experts (see paragraph 0045-0046, “multiple interval values may result from polling a plurality of expert panels, each panel comprises of a plurality of experts in the same or related fields, to obtain their collective assessment of interval estimates of the interval estimates of the input variables”; see paragraph 0047, “One can then compute a corresponding interval Type-2 fuzzy membership function”; see paragraph 0058, “The preferred input variable Type-2 membership functions can be extracted by polling multiple experts for simple interval inputs, and then aggregating these intervals into Type-2 membership functions using a variety of techniques”; also see paragraph 0056, 0059-0061, and 0067, “the previously described mathematics are applied to these delayed production dividend to calculate an interval Type-2 representation of fair market value”); and
ii. returning the results over the network information related to the calculation of the FMV of a contingent payment stream of claim 1 (see claim 1, “(d) a coupling means for the transmission of said fair market value of said financial product”).
where the server estimates the fair market value to account for the uncertainties and imprecise knowledge of all the factors involved in the credit default swap (see paragraph 0035, “One approach to generalizing these formulas is to assume these parameters are random variables, assign each of them an appropriate probability density function to represent the uncertainty in their values”; see paragraph 0040, “a Type-2 membership function is characterized by a ‘footprint of uncertainty’”; also see paragraph 0030 for CDS).
As per claim 25, Lupien teaches wherein the network is selected from the group consisting of the Internet, intranet, local area networks, wide area networks, and a wireless network (see claim 1, “(d) a coupling means for the transmission of said fair market value of said financial product”; one skilled in the art would immediately recognize the network types recited in the claim are standard well-known network).
As per claim 26, Lupien teaches wherein the network comprises a plurality of interconnected networks (see claim 1, “(d) a coupling means for the transmission of said fair market value of said financial product”).
As per claim 27, Lupien teaches where the credit default swap is selected from the group consisting of royalties, options on royalties, streaming contracts, and combinations thereof (see paragraph 0031 and 0033).
Response to Remarks
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the present invention “describes a specific technical process very similar to McRO, which is applied through a computer software architecture but to more effectively obtain user inputs in the estimation of FMV to improve the efficiency of estimation in the fair market value of credit default swap such as based on a set of IT2 MFs for various inputs using interval data provided by subject matter experts in a process of calculating FMV involving, in part, specific novel mathematical calculations, in order to facilitate negotiations between buyers and sellers of credit default swaps”. Examiner points out that the present claims (see claim 1 as example) do not reflect Applicant’s description. Claim 1 recites a process of receiving data from database, performing a series of mathematical calculations to obtain an updated output of fair market value of credit default swap. Examiner also points out that the present claims do not recite any specific mathematical formula to distinguish from existing mathematical process. Even if the present claims recite specific novel mathematical calculations, the novelty is entirely in the realm of abstract concept.
The USPTO’s November 2016 Memorandum discusses the McRO case. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held the claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using particular computer-implemented rules patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (i.e. allowing computer to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators). As part of its analysis, the McRO court examined the specification, which described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists, to set morph weights and transition parameters between phonemes. As explained in the specification, human artists did not use the claimed rules, and instead relied on subjective determinations to set morph weights and manipulate the animated face to match pronounced phonemes. As such, McRO's claims are not focused on a mere automation of known manual process, but on an improvement in computer technology. The November 2016 Memorandum further discloses two indications that a claim may be directed to an improvement in computer-related technology:
1) a teaching in the specification about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology (e.g. McRO court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea). In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of TX v. DirecTV relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones directed to an abstract idea.
2) a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome (e.g., McRO’s claims defined a specific way, namely use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes, to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea). In contrast, Electric Power Group’s claimed method was directed to an abstract idea because it merely presented the results of collecting and analyzing information, without even identifying a particular tool for the presentation.
Unlike McRO, the present claims are not directed to improve computer function. Rather, the present claims use existing computer technology to calculate fair market value of credit default swap, which is a business problem not a technological one. The present claims also do not recite specific rules unique to computer environment. Calculation of IT2 MFs can be performed by human.
The present claims also do not recite any unconventional feature or unconventional arrangement of computer elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed earlier, the focus of the claimed invention is the mathematical process itself, which resides entirely in the realm of abstract concept. A novel abstract concept is still abstract.
Examiner maintains the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103
Applicant argued that the Lupien prior art “is devoted to a type of security called ‘In-Kind Participating Preferred Security’ (IPPS)” and the estimation of this security, “while employing IT2 MFs to account for imprecision in its variables, is completely different mathematically from the present invention involving CDS”. Examiner points out that while this may be true, the present claims do not exclude IPPS and do not recite exact formula that distinguishes from Lupien. The claim language which describes the mathematical process is too broad, such that the present claims still read on Lupien. To overcome Lupien, Applicant must recite distinctive details of the mathematical process.
Applicant also argued the present invention “involves human inputs that are then transformed into a FMV estimate using a novel approach that differs significantly from those referenced in Lupien” and the claimed invention start “with a human input that is then transformed mathematically into a set of matched trades, providing novel physical feature that make the present invention non-obvious”. Examiner points out that the present claims do not recite “physical feature”. Claim 1, for example, does not transform human input into matched trades. Rather, claim 1 merely recites performing calculation to output an updated fair market value of credit default swaps. Applicant’s claim language does not reflect Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant also argued that “Zhao teaches methods for parallel processing retinal image to optimize an objective function with a supply-demand algorithm used for enhancing real retinal images to establish a parallel multi-layer deposed interval type-2 intuitionistic fuzzy convolutional neural network model based on the virtual retinal image and the enhanced real retinal image”, so that the use of IT2 MFs bear no relationship to the present application. Examiner points out that Zhao is cited simply for showing the mathematical process of computing a calculation for a set of Interval Type-2 Membership Functions was known. The calculation of Interval Type-2 can be used for different applications. Zhao’s teaching is reasonably pertinent to the same problem. Therefore, Zhao is an analogous art and can be combined with other prior arts.
Furthermore, Applicant argued that the references do not meet the claims as amended as the illustrative alpha-cut intervals create a visual representation of the fair market value, but Applicant did not provide any rationale or address the cited Lupien’068 prior art. Lupien’068 teaches this limitation.
Examiner maintains the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Updated rejection is provided in this Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
MAY-2026
Prosecution Insights