DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on8/21/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
This application claims priority of Provisional Application 63/533994 filed on 8/22/2023. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-19 are objected to because claim 14 has an indentation issue with the “generating an insight” step. The indentation should be corrected similar to claim 1 to remove confusion if that step is meant to be a hardware component of the system. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-13 are directed toward a process, which are statutory categories of invention
Claims 20 are directed toward a transitory signal, and claims 14-19 are directed toward software per se; which are NOT statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a method for generating a personalized analysis for a user of network based content obtained from a plurality of network sources using a user profile of the user in conjunction with a large language model (LLM), the network sources available over a communications network, the method comprising the steps of: assembling the user profile to contain user profile data including financial instrument information and user interest data associated with the user, the financial information pertaining to a set of financial instruments; storing the user profile data in a storage for use as a set of content search parameters and storing user interest data in the storage for use as a set of content filters; comparing the content search parameters to the network based content obtained from a set of network sources to determine matching content, the set of network sources selected from the plurality of network sources; providing the matching content and one or more content filters from the set of content filters to an LLM in order to derive a chain of thought based output relevant to the matching content and the one or more content filters; requesting the LLM to determine one or more insights using the chain of thought based output in order to generate the personalized analysis; and generating an insight notification to include the personalized analysis including the one or more insights; and sending the insight notification over the communications network to the user for subsequent processing (claims 1, 14, and 20) (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing financial instrument information compared to interest data to see what content matches and determining insights of personal users to make determinations, which is a commercial interaction.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “storing the user profile data in a storage; storing user interest data in the storage (claims 1, 14, and 20)”, which are additional elements that do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the independent claims additionally recite “a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 1);” “computer system; the system comprising: a set of instructions stored on a computer readable medium for causing one or more computer processors to; a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 14);” “computer readable media having stored instructions thereon for execution by a computer processor; a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 20)”, which are additional elements that do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 further narrow the abstract idea and recite no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims merely add the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05). Further, method; System; and Product Independent claims 1-20 recite “a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 1);” “computer system; the system comprising: a set of instructions stored on a computer readable medium for causing one or more computer processors to; a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 14);” “computer readable media having stored instructions thereon for execution by a computer processor; a plurality of network sources; the network sources available over a communications network; in a storage (claim 20); however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0040 and Figures 1-2. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the independent claims additionally recite “storing the user profile data in a storage; storing user interest data in the storage (claims 1, 14, and 20)”, which are additional elements that do not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because storing data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-13 and 15-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and present no additional elements that provide significantly more. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 14-19 are directed toward a “computer system” (a system under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim limitations however do not recite any structural elements of the system. The system claim elements in claim 14 include “a set of instructions stored on a computer readable medium” (which may be entirely software) because the limitations are merely recited as being logic/instructions implemented by a processor because the only recite piece of the system is the set of instructions, where computer executable instructions comprise entirely software. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, software per se. The Examiner recommends amending the claimed limitations to positively recite structure (e.g. a computer or electrical hardware component(s), firmware, a non-transitory computer storage medium that stores instructions) to aid in overcoming the rejection (e.g. the system comprising: a processor) (See MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 recites “a computer readable media having stored instructions thereon for execution by a computer processor for generating a personalized analysis for a user of network based content obtained from a plurality of network sources using a user profile of the user in conjunction with a large language model (LLM), the network sources available over a communications network, the computer processor executing the stored instructions to” where the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable media covers the forms of non-transitory tangible medial and transitory propagating signal per se when the specification is silent. The claims do not positively recite any of the structure mentioned. See MPEP 2111.01. Since the claims are drawn to a computer readable medium and the specification is silent, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed cir 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C 101, Aug 24, 2009; p. 2. 7. Applicant advised to amend the claim to recite "non-transitory computer readable media” to overcome rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 (See MPEP 2106.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stading (US 2008/0243785 A1) in view of Sumant (US 2023/0245234 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 20: Stading teaches a method for generating a personalized analysis for a user of network based content obtained from a plurality of network sources using a user profile of the user in conjunction with a model, the network sources available over a communications network, the method comprising the steps of (See Figure 1, Figure 2, Paragraph 0030 – “The system also includes a personalization system to store explicit and implicit user input. The personalization system is adapted to personalize the search results from the multiple data sources to a particular user based on the explicit and implicit user input”, Paragraph 0066, and Paragraph 0103 – “generated based on a user profile”):
assembling the user profile to contain user profile data including financial instrument information and user interest data associated with the user, the financial information pertaining to a set of financial instruments (See Paragraph 0038, Paragraph 0042 – “the user data storage 132, the document data storage 134, the financial data storage 136, the classification information data storage 138, and the other data storage 140”, Paragraphs 0063-0064 – “track each user's input, transaction history, search history, and actions and makes recommendations about documents … personalization/history data that tracks user interactions, explicit feedback, and implicit feedback”, and Paragraph 0103 – “generated based on a user profile”);
storing the user profile data in a storage for use as a set of content search parameters and storing user interest data in the storage for use as a set of content filters (See Figure 1, Figure 2, Paragraph 0042, and Paragraph 0047);
comparing the content search parameters to the network based content obtained from a set of network sources to determine matching content, the set of network sources selected from the plurality of network sources (See Figure 4, Figure 6, Paragraph 0050 – “the search system 104 can apply user-specific filters to filter out search results based on implicit or explicit user input”, Paragraph 0062 – “generating search queries from Boolean searches to match a desired query format for each data source and to query the data sources on behalf of the user”, and Paragraph 0075 – “search system may cleanse the query string by replacing the keywords or the query structure to match the query structures for each of a variety of data sources”);
providing the matching content and one or more content filters from the set of content filters to a model in order to derive a chain of thought based output relevant to the matching content and the one or more content filters (See Paragraph 0049 – “the graphical user interface includes search results, statistical data derived from the search results, and secondary data related to the search results”, Paragraph 0050 – “apply user-specific filters to filter out search results based on implicit or explicit user input”, and Paragraph 0062 – “generating search queries from Boolean searches to match a desired query format for each data source and to query the data sources on behalf of the user”);
requesting the model to determine one or more insights using the chain of thought based output in order to generate the personalized analysis (See Figure 29, Paragraph 0038, Paragraph 0139 – “a market-share timeline visualization, a classification trends visualization, a company trends visualization, a topic trends visualization, a location trends visualization, a source trends visualization, and a legal trends visualization”, Paragraph 0154 – “visualization may provide insights into a particular company's litigation history”, and claim 1);
and generating an insight notification to include the personalized analysis including the one or more insights; and sending the insight notification over the communications network to the user for subsequent processing (See Figure 29, Paragraph 0038, Paragraph 0139 – “a market-share timeline visualization, a classification trends visualization, a company trends visualization, a topic trends visualization, a location trends visualization, a source trends visualization, and a legal trends visualization”, Paragraph 0154 – “visualization may provide insights into a particular company's litigation history”, and claim 1).
Stading do not specifically disclose a large language model (LLM). However, Sumant further teaches a large language model (LLM) (See Paragraph 0045 – “continuous evolve of AI Decision Advisor to act as AI voice and chat assistant using large language models (LLMs) in the decision-making process and to provide real time strategy recommendations” and claim 2).
The teachings of Stading and Sumant are related because both are analyzing customer data to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the customer analysis and insight system of Stading to incorporate the LLM of Sumant in order to ensure continuous evolution of the machine learning recommendation system.
Regarding Claim 2: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 1. Stading further teaches wherein the set of network sources includes content selected from the group consisting of news articles; market events; and topical research associated with the set of financial instruments (See Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0038, and Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 3: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 1. Stading further teaches wherein the set of financial instruments includes instruments selected from the group consisting of: stocks; bonds; mutual funds; exchange-traded funds; and real estate investment trusts (See Paragraph 0038).
Regarding Claim 4: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 1. Stading further teaches wherein the financial instrument information includes a history of instrument trading performed by the user including identified keywords (See Paragraphs 0037-0038, Paragraphs 0063-0064, and Paragraph 0080).
Regarding Claim 5: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 4. Stading further teaches wherein the identified keywords include stock symbols representing one or more of financial instruments.in the set of financial instruments (See Paragraph 0038).
Regarding Claim 6: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 1. Stading further teaches wherein the user interest data includes user selected content obtained from the plurality of network sources (See Paragraph 0030, Paragraphs 0063-0064, and Paragraph 0103).
Regarding Claim 7: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 6. Stading further teaches wherein the user selected content includes research reports generated by other members of a financial institution, such that the user is also a member of the financial institution (See Paragraphs 0037-0038, Paragraphs 0063-0064, and Paragraph 0080).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 1. Stading further teaches wherein the content search parameters are augmented by one or more parameters selected from the group consisting of: a period of time for use in limiting a temporal search window of the network based content; a specified collection of financial instruments from the set of financial instruments; and a specified type of network based content selected from one or more types of available network based content (See Paragraph 0050 – “the snapshot represents a stored instance of particular search parameters. The search system 104 can store the date and time that the particular snapshot is taken”, Paragraph 0073, Paragraph 0101 – “time-varying information, such as a current stock value”, and Paragraph 0131).
Regarding Claims 9 and 16: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 1. Stading further teaches receiving a user query in response to the insight notification and employing the model to generate a query response associated with the personalized analysis, the query response including further insight in addition to the one or more insights (See Figure 29, Paragraph 0038, Paragraph 0043 – “evaluate explicit user feedback to train a query learner application and a document learner application and to automatically generate new searches”, Paragraph 0097, Paragraph 0139 – “a market-share timeline visualization, a classification trends visualization, a company trends visualization, a topic trends visualization, a location trends visualization, a source trends visualization, and a legal trends visualization”, Paragraph 0154 – “visualization may provide insights into a particular company's litigation history”, and claim 1).
Stading do not specifically disclose a large language model (LLM). However, Sumant further teaches a large language model (LLM) (See Paragraph 0045 – “continuous evolve of AI Decision Advisor to act as AI voice and chat assistant using large language models (LLMs) in the decision-making process and to provide real time strategy recommendations” and claim 2).
The teachings of Stading and Sumant are related because both are analyzing customer data to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the customer analysis and insight system of Stading to incorporate the LLM of Sumant in order to ensure continuous evolution of the machine learning recommendation system.
Regarding Claims 10 and 17: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 1. Stading further teaches wherein the content search parameters including identified keywords are used in said comparing step (See Paragraph 0047 – “search a variety of data sources using one or more keywords (which may be provided by a user via the user device 102)”, Paragraph 0062, Paragraph 0075, and Paragraph 0105 – “the multiple criteria include a date criteria, a keyword, an industry classification, an organization identifier, or any combination thereof”).
Regarding Claims 11 and 18: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 1. Stading further teaches generating an embedding from the content search parameters such that the embedding is used in said comparing step (See Paragraph 0037 – “embedded tags”, Paragraph 0047 – “search a variety of data sources using one or more keywords (which may be provided by a user via the user device 102)”, Paragraph 0062, Paragraph 0075, and Paragraph 0105 – “the multiple criteria include a date criteria, a keyword, an industry classification, an organization identifier, or any combination thereof”).
Regarding Claims 12 and 19: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 1. Stading further teaches wherein the embedding is a numerical representation of the content search parameters including information selected from the group consisting of: text data; documents; image data; and audio data (See Figure 15, Paragraph 0037 – “embedded tags”, Paragraph 0047 – “search a variety of data sources using one or more keywords (which may be provided by a user via the user device 102)”, Paragraph 0049 – “The graphical user interface can include a text input, a graphical map having multiple selectable graphic elements, links, menu options, or any combination thereof”, Paragraph 0062, Paragraph 0075, Paragraph 0097, and Paragraph 0105 – “the multiple criteria include a date criteria, a keyword, an industry classification, an organization identifier, or any combination thereof”).
Regarding Claim 13: Stading in view of Sumant teach the limitations of claim 1. Stading further teaches wherein the insight notification is generated synchronously or asynchronously (See Figure 29, Paragraph 0038, Paragraph 0139 – “a market-share timeline visualization, a classification trends visualization, a company trends visualization, a topic trends visualization, a location trends visualization, a source trends visualization, and a legal trends visualization”, Paragraph 0154 – “visualization may provide insights into a particular company's litigation history”, and claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625