Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/854,195

COMPANY INFORMATION ANALYSIS SYSTEM AND METHOD USING EXPECTED PEG

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Oct 04, 2024
Examiner
SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY
Art Unit
3691
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Peg Technologies Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
29%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
59%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 29% of cases
29%
Career Allow Rate
152 granted / 528 resolved
-23.2% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
566
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§103
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§102
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 528 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on October 4, 2024. Claims 1-3 are pending and have been examined. The rejections and a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art are stated below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2. 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for analyzing and displaying company information using price-earnings growth (PEG) data, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below. Analysis Step 1: In the instant case, exemplary claim 2 is directed to a method (process). Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A company information analysis method using expected PEG, the method being performed by a server and comprising: (a) a parameter setting stage that sets parameters necessary for analyzing a company; (b) a data collection stage that collects stock prices and EPS data necessary for analyzing the expected PEG in the server; (c) a data arithmetic-operation stage that calculates the expected PEG using [Mathematical Formula 13], [Mathematical Formula 14], [Mathematical Formula 15], [Mathematical Formula 16], [Mathematical Formula 17] and [Mathematical Formula 38] to specifically process PEG using an arithmetic-operation formula and the data collected in (b) above; (d) a storage stage that stores data used for analysis and expected PEG calculation results in the server; and (e) a display stage that displays company information and expected PEG data analyzed and stored in the server on a screen: [Mathematical Formula 13] lYE PEG =ABS(P/EPS t+1)/{(EPS t+1 - EPS t)/ABS(EPS t)x100} where, lYE PEG = Expected PEG in 1 year (lYE PEG) P = Stock price on a calculation date EPS t =EPS of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls EPS t+1 = Expected EPS in 1 year based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls ABS = Absolute value [Mathematical Formula 14] 2YE PEG =ABS (P/EPS t+2)/{(EPS t+2 - EPS t+1)/ABS (EPS t+1)x100} where, P = Stock price on a calculation date 2YE PEG = Expected PEG in 2 years (2YE PEG) EPS t+1=Expected EPS in 1 year based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls EPS t+2 = Expected EPS in 2 years based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls ABS = Absolute value [Mathematical Formula 15] 3YE PEG =ABS (P/EPS t+3)/{(EPS t+3 - EPS t+2)/ABS(EPS t+2)x100}where, 3YE PEG= Expected PEG in 3 years (3YE PEG) P = Stock price on a calculation date EPS t+2 =Expected EPS in 2 years based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls EPS t+3 = Expected EPS in 3 years based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls ABS = Absolute value [Mathematical Formula 16] 2YAE PEG = ABS [P/{(EPS t+1+E PS t+2)/2}]/[{(EPS t+1+EPS t+2)/2 - EPS t}/ABS(EPS t)x 100] where, 2YAE PEG = 2-year average expected PEG (2YAE PEG) P = Stock price on a calculation date EPS t = EPS of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls EPS t+1= Expected EPS in 1 year based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls EPS t+2 = Expected EPS in 2 years based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls ABS = Absolute value [Mathematical Formula 17] 3YAE PEG =ABS[P/{(EPS t+1+E PS t+2 +EPS t+3)/3}]/[{(EPS t+1+EPS t+2+EPS t+3)/3 - EPS t}/ABS(EPS t)x100] where, 3YAE PEG = 3-year average expected PEG (3YAE PEG) P = Stock price on a calculation date EPS t = EPS of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls EPS t+1= Expected EPS in 1 year based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls EPS t+2= Expected EPS in 2 years based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls EPS t+3 = Expected EPS in 3 years based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls ABS = Absolute value [Mathematical Formula 38] IYBDE PEG =ABS (P/EPS t+1)/{(EPS t+1- EPS ct)/ABS(EPS ct) x100} where, IYBDE PEG = Expected PEG in 1 year before company performance is announced after the year has changed (IYBDE PEG) P = Stock price on a calculation date EPS ct = Expected EPS (consensus, estimated EPS) of the previous year (t) prior to a year in which the calculation date falls EPS t+1= Expected EPS in 1 year based on the last day of the previous year prior to a year in which the calculation date falls ABS = Absolute value” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements. Analyzing and displaying company information using price-earnings growth (PEG) data is a fundamental economic practice such as financial analysis. The steps of “(a) a parameter setting stage that sets parameters necessary for analyzing a company; (b) a data collection stage that collects stock prices and EPS data necessary for analyzing the expected PEG in the server; (c) a data arithmetic-operation stage that calculates the expected PEG using [Mathematical Formula 13], [Mathematical Formula 14], [Mathematical Formula 15], [Mathematical Formula 16], [Mathematical Formula 17] and [Mathematical Formula 38] to specifically process PEG using an arithmetic-operation formula and the data collected in (b) above; ……. (e) a display stage that displays company information and expected PEG data analyzed and stored in the server on a screen” steps considered collectively is also fulfilling agreements between the parties concerned (the party providing the results of the analysis (using the formulas recited in the claim) and the user using the results). Hence, the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”. That is, other than, a server and a screen on a display, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a server and a screen on a display to perform all the steps. Claim 1 recites in addition, the additional elements of a Parameter setting unit, a Data collection unit, a Data Arithmetic-Operation unit, and an arithmetic-Operation result storage unit to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-2 and associated descriptions in the Specification reveals that the server is a generic server suitably programmed to perform the claimed steps. All the units including the Display unit, the Parameter setting unit, the Data collection unit, the Data Arithmetic-Operation unit, and the arithmetic-Operation result storage unit are broadly interpreted to comprise generic computer components suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, claims 2 is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claim does 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, using the additional elements (identified above) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 2 is not patent eligible. Independent claims 1 and 3 are also not patent eligible based on similar reasoning and rationale. In all the claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the independent claims are not patent eligible. Allowable Subject Matter 4. Claims 1-3 would be allowable, over prior art, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art: The closest prior art of record, (Burnstein; Stanley M. US Pub 2015/0012459 A1 and Hu; Kuo-Tsai US Pub. 2014/0058977 A1), considered individually or in combination, fail to teach the steps of “calculating the expected Price-Earnings-Growth (PEG) using Mathematical Formulas ([Mathematical Formulas 13 -17], and [Mathematical Formula 38]) listed in the claim”. Page 3 of 13Appl. No.: 14/331,106For these reasons claims 1, 2 and 3 are deemed allowable over prior art. Conclusion 5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are: (a) Afshar; Cyrus (US Pub. 2018/0189883 A1) discloses a method for determining whether a stock price (or a stock price index or stock price indices) is more likely to rise or fall. A plurality of factor scores, based on a plurality of factors, is determined. An aggregate score, based on a plurality of factor scores, is then determined. (b) Chugh; Ashu et al. (US Pub. 2015/0134502 A1) discloses a method for aggregating company information includes receiving a request from a user to obtain information associated with a company, aggregating, by one or more processing devices, the information associated with the company from a plurality of websites in real time without caching any data associated with the information. The information includes a news story associated with the company. The method further includes analyzing, by the one or more processing devices, the information by performing a plurality of calculations using the information. The plurality of calculations includes a plurality of financial ratios. The method further includes categorizing, by the one or more processing devices, the news story associated with the company into one or more of a plurality of news categories, creating a profile associated with the company based on the information, and communicating the profile associated with the company to the user. 6. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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. /Narayanswamy Subramanian/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3691 January 19, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12555088
SHARED MOBILE PAYMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548077
USER-DEFINED ALGORITHM ELECTRONIC TRADING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12437736
AUDIBLE USER INTERFACE AND METHOD FOR ANALYZING AND TRACKING FINANCIAL ASSETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 07, 2025
Patent 12380449
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTELLIGENT STEP-UP FOR ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 05, 2025
Patent 12355885
ESTABLISHING A CONTINGENT ACTION TOKEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 08, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
29%
Grant Probability
59%
With Interview (+30.3%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 528 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month