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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an predicted”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 4 are 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 recites “relative strength.” The claim limitation is not described in the specification in such as a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art as the time the application was filed, that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. The specification mentions “relative strength” in paragraphs 17 and 20, but fails to describe in the specification what relative strength is in relation to the application.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim recites the limitation “relative strength.” The claim fails to particularly point and distinctly claim what “relative strength” is.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 and 9: Ineligible.
Claim 1 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 9 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claims 1 and 9 recite storing, an investor's asset information; receiving, real-time price information for each item; and analyzing, the real-time price information for each item, wherein the analyzing of, the real-time price information for each item comprises: calculating, an appropriate price for each individual item using an analysis result of the real-time price information for each item; establishing, a first investment strategy based on the calculated appropriate price; and transmitting, the first investment strategy, and wherein the first investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects an appropriate price for each individual item. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are fundamental economic practice, specifically hedging. Also, under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, specifically sales activities and business relations. Lastly, under human activity, the limitations are managing interactions between people, specifically following instructions. 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).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an automatic investment platform service providing system, a storage unit, a communication unit, an external server, an analysis unit, and a transaction server. The additional elements of an automatic investment platform service providing system, a storage unit, a communication unit, an external server, an analysis unit, and a transaction server, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. 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).
Next, the claims are 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 (an automatic investment platform service providing system, a storage unit, a communication unit, an external server, an analysis unit, and a transaction server) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component 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 2 recites wherein the analysis unit computes a relative strength based on structured data and unstructured data, including an analysis result of the real-time price information for each item, and calculates an appropriate price for the individual item using the computed relative strength. 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 3 recites wherein the structured data further comprises: a market adjustment ratio calculated through artificial intelligence learning based on market data including at least two market indicator data, and an item adjustment ratio calculated through artificial intelligence learning based on individual item data, including spot and/or futures price data of each individual item. 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 4 recites wherein the unstructured data comprises at least one of news information, institutional information, and expert information. 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 5 recites wherein the communication unit receives the investor's investment propensity, wherein the storage unit stores the investor's investment propensity received by the communication unit, wherein the analysis unit establishes a second investment strategy that reflects the investor's investment propensity, wherein the communication unit transmits the second investment strategy to the transaction server, and wherein the second investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects an appropriate price of an item set to reflect the investor's investment propensity. 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 wherein the storage unit stores a proportion of the investor's asset, wherein the communication unit receives a transaction execution result according to a trading order from an external server, wherein when a proportion of the investor's asset changes based on the transaction execution result according to the trading order, the analysis unit establishes a follow-up trading strategy so that the changed proportion of the investor's asset corresponds to that of a preset reference asset, wherein the communication unit transmits the follow-up trading strategy to the transaction server, and wherein the follow-up trading strategy comprises a trading order for an item that makes the changed proportion of the investor's asset match that of the preset reference 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 7 recites wherein the storage unit stores at least one of market indicators for each market, index information, information for each item, performance information for each product, news information, and expert information, wherein the analysis unit analyzes at least one of market indicators for each market, index information, information for each item, performance information for each product, news information, and expert information to select a recommended theme, and wherein the communication unit transmits the recommended theme selected by the analysis unit to a user terminal. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the user terminal 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. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites The system of claim 1, wherein the storage unit stores chart information for each specific type, wherein the analysis unit calculates a predicted stock price for each item using the chart information for each specific type, and establishes a third investment strategy that reflects the predicted stock price for each item, wherein the communication unit transmits the third investment strategy to the transaction server, and wherein the third investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects an predicted stock price for each item. 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 10 recites wherein the analyzing of, by the analysis unit, the real-time price information for each item comprises: receiving, by the communication unit, the investor's investment propensity; storing, by the storage unit, the investor's investment propensity received by the communication unit; establishing, by the analysis unit, a second investment strategy that reflects the investor's investment propensity; and transmitting, by the communication unit, the second investment strategy to the transaction server, and wherein the second investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects an appropriate price of an item set to reflect the investor's investment propensity. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 11 recites The method of claim 9, wherein the analyzing of, by the analysis unit, the real-time price information for each item comprises: storing, by the storage unit, a proportion of the investor's asset; receiving, by the communication unit, a transaction execution result according to a trading order from an external server; establishing, by the analysis unit, when a proportion of the investor's asset changes based on the transaction execution result according to the trading order, a follow-up trading strategy so that the changed proportion of the investor's asset corresponds to that of a preset reference asset; and transmitting, by the communication unit, the follow-up trading strategy to the trading server, and wherein the follow-up trading strategy comprises a trading order for an item that makes the changed proportion of the investor's asset match that of the preset reference asset. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 12 recites wherein the analyzing of, by the analysis unit, the real-time price information for each item comprises: storing, by the storage unit, at least one of market indicators for each market, index information, information for each item, performance information for each product, news information, and expert information; analyzing, by the analysis unit, at least one of market indicators for each market, index information, information for each item, performance information for each product, news information, and expert information to select a recommended theme; and transmitting, by the communication unit, the recommended theme selected by the analysis unit to a u9er terminal. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and the user terminal 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 9 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein the analyzing of, by the analysis unit, the real-time price information for each item comprises: storing, by the storage unit, chart information for each specific type; calculating, by the analysis unit, a predicted stock price for each item using the chart information for each specific type; establishing, by the analysis unit, a third investment strategy that reflects the predicted stock price for each item; and transmitting, by the communication unit, the third investment strategy to the transaction server, and wherein the third investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects a predicted stock price for each item. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 9, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, supra.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley US 20210056629, in view of Zhang CN 207164823 and Birkhead US 20150199763.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Foley discloses an automatic investment platform service providing method, the method comprising:
receiving, real-time price information for each item from an external server (Claim 15, Real-time options trading; Fig. 2, real times prices based on different dates; Element 310, real-time market prices; Fig. 11, External Third Party services, with market data 1147 and trading routing 1148);
and analyzing, by an analysis unit, the real-time price information for each item, wherein the analyzing of, by the analysis unit, the real-time price information for each item (Analyzing prices throughout based on market conditions; Element 310, real-time price information; Para. 33, visualization of different prices for options) comprises:
calculating, by the analysis unit, an appropriate price for each individual item using an analysis result of the real-time price information for each item (Para. 10, system processes and calculates real-time analytics; Para. 30, Calculate stock price and “expected move; Para. 32, calculated by the system; Para. 55-56, Processor serves as the analysis unit);
establishing, by the analysis unit, a first investment strategy based on the calculated appropriate price (Para. 36; Para. 37, User selects “strategy” based on different parameters; “Generation engine” may also construct potential trade strategies that reflect the user);
and transmitting, the first investment strategy to a transaction server (Fig. 11, 1140 is a server application; Para. 66, User computing device accesses client application 1130 to view trading strategies, and prompt user for action; Visualization tool on client application 1130 shows different price actions for “expected” or “implied move, Para. 28-30; Para. 34, User can select whether Bullish or Neutral in accordance with an investment strategy and a price target, with a “Probability of outcome” 440 being determined on the trade axis), and wherein the first investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects an appropriate price for each individual item (Fig. 10, User selects strategy 1050 from an options strategy 1030 and 1040, with an order ticket generated 1060 and executed at 1080).
Foley fails to disclose storing, by a storage unit, an investor's asset information. However, Birkhead discloses a trading system that stores investors asset information in order to make trades in the future (Para. 36; Para. 81, Fig. 3, system 103 stores current positions of investors; Element 305 stored for investment content 315, and Fig. 4, 305with 430, 440, 450 and 460).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Foley with storing investors assets information of Birkhead. Doing so allows the trading platform to better understand the investors current asset position and portfolio and make better predicted decisions for the user.
Foley also fails to disclose a communication unit for trading. However, Zhang discloses a communication unit that is connected to a trading server for communicating trades during the transaction process (Fig. 1, Communication unit 4 in connection with trading server 6; Abstract, “NOVELTY - The utility model relates to an electronic transaction device, the device at least comprises a first processor and is connected with the data display unit, a storage unit and a communication unit, the communication unit remotely connected to the trading server, the electronic transaction device further comprises a second processor and a comparator, wherein the second processor data connected to the storing unit and the communication unit, a comparator set between the output end and the input end of the second processor of the first processor. electronic transaction device of this utility model is capable of generating the trading strategy before the evaluation parameter of real-time and historical market and market to the feasibility of the user directly know the trading strategy. At the same time, the device internal structure simply and reasonable layout, can improve the commission for generating speed”).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Foley with the communication unit of Zhang. Doing so allows the user and the system to place necessary trades and make changes to trades accordingly.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley US 20210056629, in view of Zhang CN 207164823 and Birkhead US 20150199763, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, further in view of Trevathan US 20210065294.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, modified Foley fails to disclose wherein the storage unit stores at least one of market indicators for each market, index information, information for each item, performance information for each product, news information, and expert information,
wherein the analysis unit analyzes at least one of market indicators for each market, index information, information for each item, performance information for each product, news information, and expert information to select a recommended theme, and wherein the communication unit transmits the recommended theme selected by the analysis unit to a user terminal. However, Trevathan discloses an artificial intelligence trading platform that uses market sentiment and dynamic risk with such inputs as a user account (Fig. 7) with risk profiles and a user profile, investment account and order history with a sentiment analysis that includes news feeds, Morningstar for stock analysis, as well as social sentiment, earnings per share, and investor sentiment (1204, 1300) to create an activation function with different notifications (Para. 168) that can alert the user through email or SMS to a user to take action as necessary based on the artificial intelligence recommendation (Para. 168, Para. 92).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Foley with the artificial intelligence unit for trading to take action for the user of Trevathan. Doing so enables the platform to take real-time action on different movements in the stock market, on the basis of the user’s motivation, as well as helps the user save money by making automated decisions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adams US 20140188761, 7/3/2014, G06Q40/06, discloses storing investors data for predicted positions (Para. 36).
Griffen US 20110040699, 7/16/2017, G06Q40/06, discloses storing investors data (Para. 4 & 47).
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 on 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