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
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 10/10/2025.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2-5, 8 and 10-13 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 9 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “calculates an appropriate price….,” should state “calculate an appropriate price” in line 23. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 7, and 9 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 system, 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 claim is 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 that are denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 1 recites An automatic investment platform service providing system, the system comprising: a storage unit that stores an investor's asset information, said asset information comprising information on assets including cash, stocks, bonds, or cryptocurrency, and the investor's investment propensity; a communication unit that receives real-time price information for each item from an external server; and an analysis unit that analyzes the real-time price information for each item, 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 converted into structured data, and also stores chart information for each specific type, wherein the news information and expert information converted into structured data are converted by the analysis unit by: extracting text included in at least one of news information and expert information, which are unstructured data; performing opinion mining on the extracted text; assigning a numerical score to at least one of the news information and expert information based on the opinion mining result; and performing sentiment analysis on at least one of the news information and expert information, wherein the analysis unit is configured to: calculates an appropriate price for each individual item using at least one of the market indicators for each market, index information, information for each item, performance information for each product, and the news and expert information converted into structured data, and establish a first investment strategy based on the calculated appropriate price and the asset information; establish a second investment strategy based on an appropriate price of an item set to reflect the investor's investment propensity; calculate a predicted stock price for each item using the chart information for each specific type, and establish a third investment strategy that reflects the calculated predicted stock price for each item; compare a stock price graph type included in the chart information for each specific type with a current stock price graph type of a specific stock to expect a future stock price graph of the specific stock, and establish a fourth investment strategy that reflects a predicted stock price for the specific stock using the expected future stock price graph; and select trending themes and trending items using at least one of the market indicators for each market, index information, information for each item, performance information for each product, and the news and expert information converted into structured data, calculate a predicted stock price for each item for the selected trending themes and trending items using the chart information for each specific type, and establish a fifth investment strategy that reflects the calculated predicted stock price for each item, wherein the communication unit is configured to transmits the first investment strategy, the second investment strategy, the third investment strategy, the fourth investment strategy, and the fifth investment strategy to a transaction server, and wherein the first investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects an appropriate price for each individual wherein the first investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects an appropriate price for each individual item, 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, wherein the third investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects the predicted stock price for each item, wherein the fourth investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects the predicted stock price for a specific item, and wherein the fifth investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects the predicted stock price for each 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. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk. 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 automatic investment platform service providing system, storage unit, communication unit, analysis unit, external server, extracting text, assigning numerical score, opinion mining, sentiment analysis, and a transaction server. The additional elements of automatic investment platform service providing system, storage unit, communication unit, analysis unit, external server, extracting text, assigning numerical score, opinion mining, sentiment analysis, 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, 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 (automatic investment platform service providing system, storage unit, communication unit, analysis unit, external server, extracting text, assigning numerical score, opinion mining, sentiment analysis, 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 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 the additional elements of the storage unit, communication unit, external server, analysis unit and transaction server 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 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 additional elements of the storage unit, analysis unit, communication unit and 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 9:
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 9 recites a process, 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 claim is 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 that are denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 9 recites an automatic investment platform service providing method, the method comprising: storing, by a storage unit, an investor's asset information, said asset information comprising information on assets including cash, stocks, bonds, or cryptocurrency, and the investor's investment propensity; receiving, by a communication unit, real-time price information for each item from an external server; and analyzing, by an analysis unit, the real-time price information for each item, wherein the storing further comprises: storing 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 converted into structured data, and also storing chart information for each specific type, wherein the analyzing further comprises: converting unstructured data of news information and expert information into structured data by: extracting text included in at least one of news information and expert information; performing opinion mining on the extracted text; assigning a numerical score to at least one of the news information and expert information based on the opinion mining result; and performing sentiment analysis on at least one of the news information and expert information; calculating an appropriate price for each individual item using at least one of the market indicators for each market, index information, information for each item, performance information for each product, and the news and expert information converted into structured data, and establishing a first investment strategy based on the calculated appropriate price and the asset information; establishing a second investment strategy based on an appropriate price of an item set to reflect the investor's investment propensity; calculating a predicted stock price for each item using the chart information for each specific type, and establishing a third investment strategy that reflects the calculated predicted stock price for each item; comparing a stock price graph type included in the chart information for each specific type with a current stock price graph type of a specific stock to expect a future stock price graph of the specific stock, and establishing a fourth investment strategy that reflects a predicted stock price for the specific stock using the expected future stock price graph; and selecting trending themes and trending items using at least one of the market indicators for each market, index information, information for each item, performance information for each product, and the news and expert information converted into structured data, calculating a predicted stock price for each item for the selected trending themes and trending items using the chart information for each specific type, and establishing a fifth investment strategy that reflects the calculated predicted stock price for each item, wherein the method further comprising transmitting, by the communication unit, the first investment strategy, the second investment strategy, the third investment strategy, the fourth investment strategy, and the fifth investment strategy to a transaction server, and wherein the first investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects an appropriate price for each individual 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, wherein the third investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects the predicted stock price for each item, wherein the fourth investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects the predicted stock price for a specific item, and wherein the fifth investment strategy comprises a trading order that reflects the predicted stock price for each 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. More specifically, under fundamental economic practice, the claims involve mitigating risk. 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 storage unit, communication unit, analysis unit, extracting text, opinion mining, assigning numerical score, sentiment analysis, and transaction server. The additional elements of a storage unit, communication unit, analysis unit, extracting text, opinion mining, assigning numerical score, sentiment analysis, and 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).
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 storage unit, communication unit, analysis unit, extracting text, opinion mining, assigning numerical score, sentiment analysis, and 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 9-10 (Applicant arguments) that the currently recited claims that amended claim 1, recite a “specific improvement in data processing…,” and a “specific method for transforming raw, unstructured data into a structured, quantitative actionable format that a computer can process” and that this is not an abstract idea, but a computational process that improves a computers ability to process a particular type of data (unstructured news and expert opinions) that was “previously difficult for automated systems to utilize effectively, and now provides a “superior data input for decision-making algorithms, representing a tangible improvement in the field of financial data processing technology.” Examiner disagrees. According to the Applicants specification, the difference between “structured” and “unstructured” data is whether or not the information has been analyzed. There is nothing in the claims or specification that suggests “structured” data is technical in nature.
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims are a combination of claim elements that provides “significantly more” by reciting a specific, multi-faceted and autonomous system, as well as the “trading order.” Examine disagrees. The trading strategies (Applicant lists on pg. 10) are just trading strategies, and are not improvements in computers as tools. In short, 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.
Unlike Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (“Enfish”), where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts. Therefore, based on the similarity of the concept described in this claim to abstract idea identified by the courts, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: Yes). The court also emphasized that the "directed to" inquiry applies a filter to claims, when interpreted in view of the specification, based on whether their character as a whole is directed to a patent ineligible concept. The Federal Circuit cautioned against describing a claim at a high level of abstraction untethered from the language of the claim when determining the focus of the claimed invention.
Further, in Enfish, the court asked whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database), or instead on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the court looked to the teachings of the specification. Specifically, the court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements.
The Federal Circuit in Enfish stated that certain claims directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software, are not necessarily abstract (Step 2A). The court specifically noted that some improvements in computer-related technology, such as chip architecture or an LED display, when appropriately claimed, are undoubtedly not abstract. Explaining that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware can, the court noted that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, also are not inherently abstract.
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 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 /Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights