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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the documents filed on 4/6/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for prior priority dates including:
This application has PRO 63/459,511 04/14/2023
This application has PRO 63/454,282 03/23/2023
This application has PRO 63/454,287 03/23/2023
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.
All claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 11 (herein called Additional Independent Claims). The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of:
receiving, by a processor, input from a user, the input comprising at least one of a text or audio prompt;
processing, by the processor, the input using an artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate extracted information;
generating, by the processor, a plurality of responses using generative AIs with the extracted information as input; and
generating, by the processor, a recommendation based on the plurality of responses.
copying, by the processor, a subset of the plurality of responses and performing ambiguous modification to the copied responses to prepare modified responses for a consistency check;
evaluating, by the processor using a response generation module comprising at least one of a recurrent neural network (RNN), deep RNN (DRNN), Q-learning network (QN), or deep Q- learning network (DQN), consistency between the plurality of responses and the modified responses;
scoring, by the processor, the plurality of responses based on the consistency evaluation;
selecting, by the processor, a predetermined number of top responses from the plurality of responses based on the scoring; and
generating, by the processor, a recommendation based on the plurality of determined number of top responses.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “generating a recommendation” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “on a processor” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szar = Szarvas (U.S. Patent 10,909,442) in view of Sreen = Sreenivasan (U.S. Patent Pub 2022/0237700)
Re claim 1 & 11: Szar discloses:
A method for generating personalized investment responses, comprising: (see Szar Fig 1 + 9)
A system for performing integrated investment strategy generation and management, the system comprising: a user device; and a processor external to and in communication with the user device, the processor is configured to: (see Szar Fig 1 + 9)
receiving, by a processor, input from a user, the input comprising at least one of a text or audio prompt; (see Szar fig 9 item 901-904 + column 6 lines 32-69 + abstract and “text” throughout + Fig 1 item 105, 153)
processing, by the processor, the input using an artificial intelligence (AI) model to generate extracted information; (see Szar fig 9 item 907-910 + Fig 1, item 154-158, Fig 2-8)
generating, by the processor, a plurality of responses using generative AIs with the extracted information as input; and (see Szar fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 144, 180, 185, Fig 2-8)
generating, by the processor, a recommendation based on the plurality of responses. (see Szar fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 185, Fig 2-8)
copying, by the processor, a subset of the plurality of responses and performing ambiguous modification to the copied responses to prepare modified responses for a consistency check; (see Szar para 0280 +fig 9 item 907-910 + Fig 1, item 154-158, Fig 2-8)
evaluating, by the processor using a response generation module comprising at least one of a recurrent neural network (RNN), deep RNN (DRNN), Q-learning network (QN), or deep Q- learning network (DQN), consistency between the plurality of responses and the modified responses; (see Szar para 0265-0266 + 0254-0255 + fig 9 item 907-910 + Fig 1, item 154-158, Fig 2-8)
scoring, by the processor, the plurality of responses based on the consistency evaluation; (see Szar para 0264 + fig 9 item 907-910 + Fig 1, item 154-158, Fig 2-8)
selecting, by the processor, a predetermined number of top responses from the plurality of responses based on the scoring; and (see Szar para 0248+ 0283 + fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 185, Fig 2-8)
generating, by the processor, a recommendation based on the plurality of determined number of top responses. (see Szar para 0017-0021 + fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 185, Fig 2-8)
Although Szar does not have financial instrument recommendation, Sreen claims “Financial instrument recommendation” see Sreen Fig 119
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Szar by adapting any features of Sreen.
It is clear that one would be motivated by the teaching in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, both Szar teaches Fig 9 that is adapted in Sreen system see Sreen Figure 119 – 122.
The examiner would also like to note that these claims are currently so broad and generic they read of hundreds of patents and could be reject with official notice. The concept that AI is used to make a recommendation is exactly what AI is used for and all system including almost every web site and chat GPT have this embedded into it.
Re claim 2 & 12: see claim 1 +
further comprising: connecting, by the processor, real-time market data and exclusive datasets to the plurality of responses to improve quality and relevant of the plurality of responses. (see Szar Column 21 lines 22-60 fig 9 item 901-904 + column 6 lines 32-69 + abstract and “text” throughout + Fig 1 item 105, 153 + See Sreen Fig 130-136)
Re claim 3 & 13: see claim 1 +
wherein generating the plurality of responses using generative AIs with the extracted information as the input comprises: generating the plurality of responses using generative AIs with the extracted information and personal factors of the user as input, wherein personal factors comprise at least one of risk profile, declared income, place of residence, or current market conditions. (see Szar fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 144, 180, 185, Fig 2-8 + See Sreen Fig 130-136)
Re claim 4 & 14: see claim 1 +
wherein the recommendation is generated by performing a consistency check on the plurality of responses before selecting and outputting a predetermined number of top responses from the plurality of responses as the recommendation. (see Szar fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 144, 180, 185, Fig 2-8)
Re claim 5 & 15: see claim 1 +
further comprising: performing, by the user, at least one of response selection, response modification, or additional response request in association with the recommendation. (see Szar fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 144, 180, 185, Fig 2-8)
Re claim 6 & 16: see claim 1 +
further comprising: performing, by the user, response selection to select responses contained in the recommendation; generating, by the processor, relevant data associated with selected responses; and storing, by the processor, the selected responses and the relevant data to a database, wherein the relevant data comprises at least one of past performance charts or Greeks for risk measurement at various maturities. (see Szar fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 144, 180, 185, Fig 2-8)
Re claim 7 & 17: see claim 1 +
further comprising: sharing the selected responses with other users to enable review and execution of the selected responses by other users. (see Szar fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 144, 180, 185, Fig 2-8)
Re claim 8 & 18: see claim 1 +
further comprising: generating descriptions for each of the plurality of responses; and storing the plurality of responses and descriptions for future investment. (see Szar fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 144, 180, 185, Fig 2-8)
Re claim 9 & 19: see claim 1 +
further comprising: displaying a user prompt to perform a user request in accordance with the recommendation on a user device for the user to select; and executing, by the processor, the user request in response to a single user input to the user device to select the user prompt, wherein executing the user request comprises automatically submitting at least one order, in accordance with the recommendation without requiring further input from the user. (see Szar fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 144, 180, 185, Fig 2-8)
Re claim 10 & 20: see claim 1 +
wherein the plurality of responses comprises responses associated at least one of stocks, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), futures, cryptocurrencies, or blockchain-based assets. (see Szar fig 9 item 913 + Fig 1, item 144, 180, 185, Fig 2-8 + Sreen Fig 119)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng et al., U.S. Patent No 11367117, discloses an artificial intelligence system, gifting-related ranking information pertaining to a plurality of items is obtained. Using the ranking information and respective feature sets corresponding to the items, a machine learning model is trained to generate respective gift-suitability scores corresponding to individual items.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Answers to the arguments on the amended limitations which change the scope of the claims, will be addressed in the action above. Applicant's art arguments are considered moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights