DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation, “generating, by said at least one processor, a table where all weight vector associated with the pricing prediction value of the bond…” should recite –weight vectors--.
The limitation, “receiving, by said at least one processor, weight vector…” should recite –weight vectors--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
4. Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite:
“computing, by said at least one processor, a loss function for each of said plurality of data sources individually,...and the second part indicates a profit and loss proxy that penalizes corresponding data source for being predicting a price for the bond that is comparatively very far to the real trade value…” is unclear. Did the applicant intend to recite, -- that penalizes corresponding data source for predicting a price for the bond that is comparatively very far from the real trade value of the bond at the time when the trade was executed-- ?
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite:
“computing…wherein the first part is a term indicating a distance comparatively very close to a real trade value of the bond at the time when the trade was executed…penalizes corresponding data source for being [SIC] predicting a price for the bond that is comparatively very far to the real trade value of the bond…”
The limitations of “a distance comparatively very close” and “a price for the bond that is comparatively very far” create ambiguity in the claims. The Specification does not clearly define “comparatively very close” and “comparatively very far” rendering the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(c).
The remaining limitations are rejected due to the dependency to claims 1, 8, and 15.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Using the limitations in claim 1 to illustrate, the claim recite(s) the limitations of: generating, a table where all weight vector associated with the pricing prediction value of the bond at the given time received from said plurality of data sources are included therein; receiving, weight vector as input corresponding to the bond from the table; computing a loss function for each of said plurality of data sources individually, wherein each loss function includes a first part and a second part, wherein the first part is a term indicating a distance comparatively very close to a real trade value of the bond at the time when the trade was executed, and the second part indicates a profit and loss proxy that penalizes corresponding data source for being predicting a price for the bond that is comparatively very far to the real trade value of the bond at the time when the trade was executed; and computing a fair market value of the bond based on the loss function.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The claimed invention allows for combining multiple pricing data sources for on-line bond trading which is a certain method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices). The mere nominal recitation of by said at least one processor, and a communications interface do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements:
establishing a communication link between a plurality of data sources and at least one processor via a communication interface, wherein each of said plurality of data sources provides a pricing prediction value of a bond at a given time, and receiving, by said at least one processor, weight vectors as input corresponding to the bond from the table;
Establishing a communication link wherein each of said plurality of data sources provide a pricing prediction value and receiving weight vectors as input corresponding to the bond from the table, steps/functions are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data over a network). Receiving and transmitting data over a network are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity –see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The processor(s) and communication interface are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generating and computing steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor and communication interface). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 8 and 15 and hence claims 8 and 15 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 8 recites system comprising a processor and a memory operatively connected to the processor via a communication interface, the memory storing computer readable instructions, when executed, causes the processor to perform the claimed functions and claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions that when executed, cause the processor to perform the claimed steps that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, under Step 2B, the additional elements found to be insignificant extra-solution activities under step 2A prong two, are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. Here, the Specification does not provide any indication that the processor, communication interface, and memory storing instructions which when executed by the processor perform the claimed steps are anything other than generic computer components and the Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, and buySafe court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05[d][ii] indicate that the mere receiving and transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the establishing communications and receiving data (weight vectors as input) limitations are well understood, routine, and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim 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. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,156,027 (Haddad et al.)-cited for a system and method for fair-value pricing of a financial assets including bonds, receiving data from financial data providers, a plurality of dimensional tables showing predicted price changes, the calculation of a vector for prices, comparing fair value of an asset and related assets, determining weighted fair values.
US 10,467,695 (Zitzewitz et al.)-cited for systems and methods related to bond valuation including weighing transaction cost adjusted prices to create a current estimate of bond value, estimating the current value of a corporate bond using trade history, as well as movements in the general credit market as proxied by liquidly traded exchange traded funds, a model and workflows for estimating current value of a corporate bond.
US 2018/0053255 (Valdyanathan et al.)- cited for a system and method for portfolio management receiving data from disparate data sources.
US 2007/0174178 (Chait et al.)-cited for a bond trading platform including receiving bond pricing information from liquidity provider, evaluate best available bond prices in the market, and determining whether bond trading transaction can be executed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694