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 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “method of an electronic apparatus providing information related to an asset price”. Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “providing information on an asset based on rules or preferences” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Additionally, the claims are directed to a mathematical relationship of determining maximums or “extremum point data” which is a local or absolute maximum or minimum within a given interval and merely applied to an asset price and time series. Claim 1 recites obtaining time series data for a first time period for a price of a first item; setting a second time period with a plurality of unit times within the first time period; setting an extraction frequency of an extremum point for the price of the first item during the second time period; initially setting a time variable, a price variable and a search direction variable related to the time series data, the search direction variable corresponding to a type of the extremum point to be searched; updating the time variable, the price variable or the search direction variable in each of the unit times under the extraction frequency during the second time period, and searching for the extremum point in the time series data during the second time period; and generating extremum point data including the extremum point and a timepoint corresponding to the extremum point. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d), the additional elements of the claim such as a processor, memory, and a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Notably, the method claims require no technology in the limitations and can be entirely performed mentally or by hand. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of “providing information on an asset based on rules or preferences.”
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of “providing information on an asset based on rules or preferences” using computer technology (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-17 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French US 2022/0084119 in view of Jeong US 2017/0140464.
As per claim 1:
French discloses a method of an electronic apparatus providing information related to an asset price, the method comprising: obtaining time series data for a first time period for a price of a first item (¶ [0053]);
setting an extraction frequency of an extremum point for the price of the first item during the [second] time period (¶¶ [0059]-[0060], Figs 6&7);
initially setting a time variable, a price variable and a search direction variable related to the time series data, the search direction variable corresponding to a type of the extremum point to be searched (¶¶ [0059]-[0060], Figs 6&7);
updating the time variable, the price variable or the search direction variable in each of the unit times under the extraction frequency during the second time period, and searching for the extremum point in the time series data during the [second] time period (¶¶ [0059]-[0060], Figs 6&7); and
generating extremum point data including the extremum point and a timepoint corresponding to the extremum point (¶¶ [0059]-[0060], Figs 6&7).
French fails to explicitly disclose but Jeong does disclose setting a second time period with a plurality of unit times within the first time period (Fig 8, ¶¶ [0125], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Jeong in French since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both are in the art of financial market pattern detection and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art of Jeong to improve French in order to increase the functionality of the data and chart module as well as improve the ability of a trader to customize use of the claimed invention.
As per claim 2:
French fails to explicitly disclose but Jeong does disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the extraction frequency is set for each detailed time period including one or more unit times in the second time period (Fig 8, ¶¶ [0125], [0071]),
wherein the extraction frequency that is set for each detailed time period is set based on at least one of volatility, a highest price and a lowest price of the first item for the each detailed time period (Fig 8, ¶¶ [0125], [0071]).
As per claim 3:
French further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the extraction frequency is set according to an asset market in which the first item is traded, a type of asset corresponding to the first item or an identifier of the first item (¶¶ [0061]-[0064]).
As per claim 4:
French further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the time variable includes a first timepoint which is a reference timepoint for determining the extremum point and a second timepoint which is a search timepoint for the extremum point (¶¶ [0059], [0060], Fig 6), and
wherein the price variable includes a temporary extremum point for the price of the first item (¶¶ [0059], [0060], Fig 6).
As per claim 5:
French further discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the searching for the extremum point includes: moving the second timepoint by a unit time from the first timepoint (Fig 7 ¶ [0060]);
comparing the temporary extremum point with a price of the second timepoint to determine whether to update the temporary extremum point (Fig 7 ¶ [0060]);
if the temporary extremum point is updated, moving the second timepoint by the unit time;
if the temporary extremum point is not updated, determining whether a price of the first timepoint is the extremum point by comparing the price of the first timepoint, the price of the second timepoint and the temporary extremum point according to a search direction corresponding to the search direction variable (Fig 7 ¶ [0060]);
if the price of the first timepoint is determined to be the extremum point, updating the temporary extremum point, the search direction variable and the first timepoint (Fig 7 ¶ [0060]); and
if it is determined that the price of the first timepoint is not the extremum point, moving the second timepoint by the unit time (Fig 7 ¶ [0060]).
As per claim 6:
French further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the determining whether to update the temporary extremum point includes: if the price of the second timepoint is lower than a temporary low that is the temporary extremum point, updating the temporary low with the price of the second timepoint (Figs 7&8 ¶¶ [0060]-[0061]); and
if the price of the second timepoint is higher than a temporary high that is the temporary extremum point, updating the temporary high with the price of the second timepoint (Figs 7&8 ¶¶ [0060]-[0061]).
As per claim 7:
French further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the determining whether a price of the first timepoint is the extremum point includes: if a first price ratio based on the temporary extremum point and the price of the first timepoint and a second price ratio based on the temporary extremum point and the price of the second timepoint are greater than or equal to a reference ratio that is set according to the extraction frequency, determining the price of the first timepoint as the extremum point (Figs 7&8 ¶¶ [0063], [0066]-[0067], see also [0075]); and
if at least one of the first price ratio and the second price ratio is less than the reference ratio, determining that the price of the first timepoint is not the extremum point (Figs 7&8 ¶¶ [0063], [0066]-[0067], see also [0075]).
As per claim 8:
French further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the first price ratio is calculated by dividing a difference between the price of the first timepoint and the temporary extremum point by the price of the first timepoint, and wherein the second price ratio is calculated by dividing a difference between the price of the second timepoint and the temporary extremum point by the price of the second timepoint (Fig 9, ¶ [0062]-[0064]).
As per claim 9:
French further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the updating includes: if the price of the first timepoint is determined to be a high that is the extremum point, setting a temporary low that is the temporary extremum point as a price of a new first timepoint, setting the price of the second timepoint as a temporary high that is the temporary extremum point and updating the search direction variable (Figs 7&8 ¶¶ [0060]-[0061], [0063], [0066]-[0067], see also [0075]); and
if the price of the first timepoint is determined to be a low that is the extremum point, setting the temporary high as a price of a new first timepoint, setting the price of the second timepoint to a new temporary low and updating the search direction variable. (Figs 7&8 ¶¶ [0060]-[0061])
As per claim 10:
French further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining technical indicator data corresponding to the extremum point data (¶ [0054]-[0057] Figs 4&5);
training an analysis model based on the extremum point data and the technical indicator data (¶ [0054]-[0057] Figs 4&5); and
inferring whether a price of the first item or a second item at a selected timepoint is the extremum point by using the analysis model (¶ [0054]-[0057] Figs 4&5, see also [0082]).
As per claim 12: French further discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the training the analysis model includes: inputting the technical indicator data matched with the extremum point data into the analysis model (¶ [0054]-[0057] Figs 4&5, see also [0082]); and
training the analysis model based on an ensemble technique (¶ 49 “plurality of machine learning algorithms”, see also ¶ [0054]-[0057] Figs 4&5, [0082]).
As per claim 13: French further discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the inferring includes: inputting the technical indicator data at the selected timepoint to the analysis model (¶ [0054]-[0057] Figs 4&5 see also [0082]); and outputting whether the price at the selected timepoint is the extremum point based on the technical indicator data at the selected timepoint (¶ [0054]-[0057] Figs 4&5 see also [0082]).
As per claim 14: French further discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the extremum point data includes data labeled with strength of the extremum point (Figs 8,9&10, ¶¶ [0061]-[0067]), and wherein the inferring includes inferring whether the price at the selected timepoint is the extremum point, and if the price at the selected timepoint is inferred as the extremum point, further inferring strength of the extremum point (Figs 8,9&10, ¶¶ [0061]-[0067]).As per claim 15: French further discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising providing a user terminal with an inference result of the analysis model including whether the price at the selected timepoint is the extremum point (¶¶ [0054]-[0056]).
As per claim 16: French further discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the inference result of the analysis model further includes at least some of the strength of the extremum point and strength of technical indicators corresponding to the selected timepoint (Figs 8,9&10, ¶¶ [0061]-[0067]).
As per claim 17: French further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising controlling an user terminal in order for chart information on a price of the first item during the first time period and chart information on technical indicator data of the first item during the first time period to be displayed together on a screen of the user terminal (Fig 4, ¶ [0055]).
As per claims 18 and 19: Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under the rationale of claim 1.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French US 2022/0084119 in view of Jeong US 2017/0140464 in further view of Aymeloglu US 2012/0030140.
As per claim 11: French fails to explicitly disclose but Aymeloglu does disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the technical indicator data includes at least one of moving average convergence & divergence (MACD), disparity in long-term moving average (MA), disparity in short-term MA, a relative strength index (RSI), a stochastic index, a directional moving index (DMI) and a position of a price on a Bollinger band (Fig 3A, ¶¶ [0038] “metrics”, [0097], [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Aymeloglu in French since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both are in the field of financial market data and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art in order to improve the characteristics that are monitored and analyzed by the system in French, which are well-known and used financial metrics of financial markets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692