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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/7/2026 has been entered.
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.
3. Claims 1, 7-8, 14-15, 21 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: implementing a pricing data sources combining module (PDSCM)…, wherein PDSCM includes a generating module, a receiving module, a computing module, an adjusting module, an updating module, an executing modules, and a communication module, wherein each module being called via a corresponding application programming interface, the modules being configured to exchange data with one another to combine multiple pricing data sources for computing the fair market value of the bond dynamically, accurately, and efficiently for market making and on-line trading purposes;
generating, by the generating module, a table stored in the allocated memory, the table including, for each of the plurality of data sources, the pricing prediction value and an associated weight vector corresponding to the bond;
receiving, by the receiving module, from the table stored in the allocated memory, the weigh vectors corresponding to the bond as input for subsequent processing by the computing module;
computing, by the computing module, a loss function for each of said plurality of data sources individually…; computing, by the computing module, the fair market value of the bond based on the computed loss functions;
generating, by the computing module, a new weight vector for each pricing prediction value based on the computed loss functions; adjusting, by the adjusting module, the weight vectors for a subsequent trade of the bond based on the generated new weight vectors; updating, by the updating module, the table stored in the allocated memory with the adjusted weight vectors for the subsequent trade of the bond, the updating includes implementing, by the PDSCM, a multiplicative weights update algorithm based on a convex loss function to update the stored weight vectors associated with the plurality of pricing data sources for the subsequent trade of the bond; executing, by the executing module, a subsequent pricing computation utilizing the adjusted weight vectors maintained in the updated table to dynamically modify contributions of the plurality of pricing data sources over successive bond trades; and completing a trade of the bond based on the adjusted weight vectors.
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 computing a fair market value of a bond which is a certain method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices) . The mere nominal recitation of a pricing data sources combining device (PDSCD), a cloud based network environment, at least one processor, and a communications interface, and memory 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 element:
establishing, by the communication module, communication links between a plurality of data sources and the PDSCD through a communication interface, wherein each of said plurality of data sources provides a pricing prediction value of the bond at a given time.
Establishing a communication link between a plurality of data sources and the PDSCD through a communication interface, wherein each of said plurality of data sources provides a pricing prediction value step/function 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 pricing data sources combining device (PDSCD), a cloud based network environment, at least one processor, memory, and a communications 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 device, network environment, processor , memory, 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, by the communication module, communications links between a plurality of data sources and the PDSCD through a communication interface limitation is a well understood, routine, and conventional activity 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, 7-8, 14-15, 21 is/are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
4. In response to the amendment of claims 1, 8, and 15 the Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the claims recite elements or a combination of elements which “integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception” because the amended claims recite “a specific adaptive processing workflow that continually modifies computer-maintained data structures,” and includes weights indicating the relative importance of each pricing data source in predicting the bond price. The arguments are not convincing.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a device (PDSCD), a cloud based network environment, at least one processor, a memory, and a communications interface. The device (PDSCD), a cloud based network environment, at least one processor, a memory, and a communications interface are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
The focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the identified additional elements as tools, but on the abstract ideas that use the additional elements as tools. The use of generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Applicants argue that unlike the claims found ineligible in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom SA, the claims here require continual modification of a persistent computer maintained data structure that governs subsequent processing performed by the pricing engine. The argument is not persuasive because the claims of the instant application use the one or more processors, memory and pricing module in their ordinary capacity. Claim 1, for example, recites the abstract ideas as a method for computing a fair market value of a bond by combining pricing data received from pricing data sources, generating a table to store data, analysis based on mathematical formulas and relationships, and completing a trade based on adjusted weight vectors, which are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (fed. Circ. 2016)(holding that steps of collecting information, even when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), do not make claims patent eligible and analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category). Mere data collection and analysis, without more, is insufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Applicants argue that the claims at issue are analogous to eligible subject matter in McRO. The argument is not persuasive.
In McRO, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using particular information and techniques—an improvement over manual three-dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea. Id, at 1316.
Unlike in McRO, the recited method and system for computing a fair market value of a bond is not a rule-based improvement of a technological process. The claims here are not directed to a specific implementation to a solution to a problem in the software arts of improving computer animation through the use of specific rules to set morph weights and transition parameters between phonemes. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that “improved [the] existing technological process.” The claims at issue in McRO described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters.
In contrast, Applicants’ claims address computing a fair market value of a bond. The claims in McRO were directed to an improvement in the operation of the computer at a task, rather than applying a computer to perform generic data manipulation steps, as in the claims of the instant application. See id, at 1314.
On page 15 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that under Step 2B, the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims define a particular adaptive pricing architecture rather than merely using a generic computer to perform a financial calculation. The argument is not convincing because the claimed invention uses generic computer components in their ordinary capacity. The claimed invention amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
On page 16, Applicant contends that similar to Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., wherein court found improved memory management constituted improvement in technology and Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., the court held generation of a new data structure improves subsequent operation and constitutes patent eligible subject matter. The argument is not convincing.
Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. addressed problems in prior art memory systems of the inflexibility and cost to adapt to other processors. The claims recited a computer memory system with programmable operations characteristics that can be tailored for use with multiple processors without reducing performance by using a three-tiered memory hierarch. Unlike the claims in the instant application, the claims in Visual Memory are not financial in nature. This is supported by the Applicant’s specification ¶[0008], (“In some embodiments, a method for computing a fair market value of a bond by utilizing one or more processors along with allocated memory is disclosed.”). The claimed invention is directed to solving a problem that is financial in nature and recite an abstract idea.
Finjan v. Blue Coat Sys. addressed a problem concerning virus scans that generates a security profile identifying both hostile and potentially hostile operations in the realm of computer technology. Unlike the claims in the instant application, the claims in Finjan are not financial in nature. The claims in the instant application are not directed to virus scans and are not akin to those found in Finjan. The claimed invention is directed to solving a problem that is financial in nature and recite an abstract idea.
On page 16, Applicants argue that under Step 2A, prong one, the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Patent Office has issued guidance about this framework. -See MPEP§ 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020), in particular, Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). As indicated in the MPEP § 2106, to decide whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim (1) recites one of the abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (“Prong One”) and (2) fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (“Prong Two”).
Beginning with Prong One, step 2A of the eligibility analysis, we must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. One of the subject matter groupings identified as an abstract idea in the Guidance is “[certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including . . . mitigating risk, insurance); commercial. . . interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; . . . sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including . . . following rules or instructions)].” See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Here, apart from the recited systems, i.e., a device (PDSCD), a cloud based network environment, at least one processor, a memory and a communications interface claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the category of “methods of organizing human activity.”
In the 101 analysis in the rejection above, the Examiner identifies and considers each of the underlying steps for the claims as a basis for describing and explaining the recited abstract idea. For example, the Examiner identifies the underlying steps of claim 1 —i.e., the “implementing,” “establishing,” “generating,” “receiving,” “computing,” “adjusting,” “updating,” “executing,” and “completing”—and explains that they describe the concept of computing a fair market value of a bond, i.e., a fundamental economic principle or practice. The Examiner' s approach here is consistent with USPTO guidance.
Regarding the argument that the claims of the instant invention are similar to the features recited in the claims at issue in Enfish, the claims in Enfish were not simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices; mathematical formulas performed on any general purpose computer; or generalized steps performed on a computer using conventional computer activity. The patent claims here are not directed to a specific implementation to a solution to a problem in the software arts of improving the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory through use of a specific data structure. In Enfish, the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computer could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. The present case is different: 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.
On page 18 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims are narrowly directed to a specific technological implementation and that the amended claims do not seek to preempt all techniques for determining a fair market value of a bond. The argument is not persuasive. That the claims do not preempt all forms of abstraction or may be limited to a particular computer-implement architecture does not make them any less abstract. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“And that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract.”).
Conclusion
5. 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
Prosecution Insights