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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and assertions.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Moreover because "[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can," the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determinations should turn on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the present claims do not provide an analogous improvement to the machine learning model. Examiner respectfully asserts that the claims are unlike the Des Jardins decision because the claims are directed to an abstract idea versus being directed to an improvement to computer functionality. The present claims do not provide an analogous technical solution to that of Des Jardins because the claims do not “address challenges in continual learning and model efficiency by reducing storage requirements and preserving task performance across sequential training.” The machine learning model of the present claims is merely a tool to perform the abstract process. An improvement to the presented derived fulfillment service options would be an improvement to the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1 and not to the reinforcement learning model itself. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Therefore, the eligibility should be determined based on an improvement in a functioning of a computer. When a claim is considered as a whole and includes the features that embody the improvement described in the specification, the claim is eligible. Paragraph [0013] of the specification recites: "The embodiments of the present disclosure provide the stock trend analysis method and apparatus based on machine learning, the electronic device, and the storage medium. The method includes: obtaining the target model and the stock data corresponding to the target stock; dividing the target model to obtain the plurality of sub-target models; determining the plurality of trend prediction results corresponding to the target stock based on the stock data and the plurality of sub-target models; and finally determining the target trend prediction result corresponding to the target stock based on the plurality of trend prediction results. In the present disclosure, the stock data is processed through a data model generated based on the machine learning, to obtain a trend analysis result corresponding to the target stock, which can improve accuracy of the prediction result and provide a user with accurate and sufficient market information".,” Examiner respectfully asserts that an improvement to a prediction result and providing accurate information, as drafted, is an improvement to the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. This improvement would not be an improvement to the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Therefore, claim 1, considered as a whole, includes the features embodying the improvement "In the present disclosure, the stock data is processed through a data model generated based on the machine learning, to obtain a trend analysis result corresponding to the target stock, which can improve accuracy of the prediction result and provide a user with accurate and sufficient market information" described in the specification.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that an improvement to a prediction result and providing accurate information, as drafted, is an improvement to the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. This improvement would not be an improvement to the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “From paragraphs [0041]-[0042] of the specification, it can be seen that the all versions of the target model are stored in a COS bucket (external cloud platform) instead of on the electronic device. The electronic device can obtain the updated target model and query past versions of the target model through the COS bucket, thereby reducing data redundancy and improving the disaster recovery backup capability of the system.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations, as drafted, are nothing more than merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological field. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 03/09/2026 has been fully considered.
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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 are directed to a method, claims 13-19 are directed to a device, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 recite determining a target trend prediction result corresponding to the target stock, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to fundamental economic principles or practices. Claim 1 recites limitations, similarly recited in claims 13 and 20, including “obtaining a target model and stock data corresponding to a target stock, wherein the stock data is determined based on technical index data and technical morphological data of the target stock, dividing the target model to obtain a plurality of sub-target models; determining a plurality of trend prediction results corresponding to the target stock based on the stock data and the plurality of sub-target models, wherein the plurality of sub-target models are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of trend prediction results; and determining a target trend prediction result corresponding to the target stock based on the plurality of trend prediction results.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of the preamble, covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the preamble language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the preamble language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 6-8, 10-11, and 18-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 12, and 14-17 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites “a stock trend analysis method based on machine learning, applicable to an electronic device, the method comprising” within the preamble of the claim. Independent claim 13 recites a device comprising “a processor; a memory; a communication interface; and one or more programs stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the processor, the programs comprising instructions for performing a stock trend analysis method based on machine learning, the method comprising.” Independent claim 20 recites “a computer-readable storage medium, configured to store a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements a stock trend analysis method based on machine learning, the method comprising,” which is within the preamble of the claim. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 further recite the additional elements of “the target model is hot-updated through a cloud object storage (COS) bucket of a public cloud, the COS bucket of the public cloud stores an MD5 value of the target model, and whether the target model is to be hot-updated is determined based on the MD5 value; the COS storage bucket stores and manages all versions of the target model.” These limitations, as drafted, are nothing more than merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological field. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 6-8, 10-11, and 18-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2 and 14 introduce the additional element of “determining whether a target file corresponding to the target model exists locally to obtain a first determination result.” Dependent claims 3 and 15 introduce the additional element of “in response to the first determination result indicating that the target file corresponding to the target model does not exist locally, downloading the target file from an object storage bucket, and decompressing the target file to obtain the target model.” Dependent claims 4 and 16 introduce the additional element of “in response to the first determination result indicating that the target file corresponding to the target model exists locally, determining whether the target file is a latest version to obtain a second determination result; and in response to the second determination result indicating that the target file is the latest version, obtaining the target model from the target file.” Dependent claims 5 and 17 introduce the additional element of “in response to the second determination result indicating that the target file is not the latest version, downloading the target file from an object storage bucket and decompressing the target file to obtain the target model.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “obtaining an initial model and training data, wherein the initial model is a random forest model; and training the initial model by using the training data to obtain the target model.” Dependent claim 12 introduces the additional element of “inputting the training data into the random forest model and optimizing a hyper parameter in the random forest model through grid search; and in response to the hyper parameter reaching a second predetermined threshold, obtaining the target model.” The limitations including “training” the model provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 1 recites “a stock trend analysis method based on machine learning, applicable to an electronic device, the method comprising” within the preamble of the claim. Independent claim 13 recites a device comprising “a processor; a memory; a communication interface; and one or more programs stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the processor, the programs comprising instructions for performing a stock trend analysis method based on machine learning, the method comprising.” Independent claim 20 recites “a computer-readable storage medium, configured to store a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements a stock trend analysis method based on machine learning, the method comprising,” which is within the preamble of the claim. These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 further recite the additional elements of “the target model is hot-updated through a cloud object storage (COS) bucket of a public cloud, the COS bucket of the public cloud stores an MD5 value of the target model, and whether the target model is to be hot-updated is determined based on the MD5 value; the COS storage bucket stores and manages all versions of the target model.” These limitations, as drafted, are nothing more than merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological field. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 6-8, 10-11, and 18-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2 and 14 introduce the additional element of “determining whether a target file corresponding to the target model exists locally to obtain a first determination result.” Dependent claims 3 and 15 introduce the additional element of “in response to the first determination result indicating that the target file corresponding to the target model does not exist locally, downloading the target file from an object storage bucket, and decompressing the target file to obtain the target model.” Dependent claims 4 and 16 introduce the additional element of “in response to the first determination result indicating that the target file corresponding to the target model exists locally, determining whether the target file is a latest version to obtain a second determination result; and in response to the second determination result indicating that the target file is the latest version, obtaining the target model from the target file.” Dependent claims 5 and 17 introduce the additional element of “in response to the second determination result indicating that the target file is not the latest version, downloading the target file from an object storage bucket and decompressing the target file to obtain the target model.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “obtaining an initial model and training data, wherein the initial model is a random forest model; and training the initial model by using the training data to obtain the target model.” Dependent claim 12 introduces the additional element of “inputting the training data into the random forest model and optimizing a hyper parameter in the random forest model through grid search; and in response to the hyper parameter reaching a second predetermined threshold, obtaining the target model.” The limitations including “training” the model provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. The closest prior art of the record discloses:
Hu (“An Ensemble Learning Model Integrating Short-term Trend and Long-term Trend Used in Stock Price Forecasting,” 2020) discloses obtaining a target model and stock data corresponding to a target stock, wherein the stock data is determined based on technical index data and technical morphological data of the target stock, dividing the target model to obtain a plurality of sub-target models; determining a plurality of trend prediction results corresponding to the target stock based on the stock data and the plurality of sub-target models, wherein the plurality of sub-target models are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of trend prediction results; and determining a target trend prediction result corresponding to the target stock based on the plurality of trend prediction results. However, Hu does not explicitly teach or disclose the target model is hot-updated through a cloud object storage (COS) bucket of a public cloud, the COS bucket of the public cloud stores an MD5 value of the target model, and whether the target model is to be hot-updated is determined based on the MD5 value; the COS storage bucket stores and manages all versions of the target model.
Zhao (“ML Ops: Data versioning with DVC — Part Ⅰ,” July 2021) discloses the COS bucket of the public cloud stores an MD5 value of the target model and updating the model within the md5 hash; the COS storage bucket stores and manages all versions of the target model. However, Zhao does not explicitly teach the target model is hot-updated through a cloud object storage (COS) bucket of a public cloud, and whether the target model is to be hot-updated is determined based on the MD5 value.
Sandor (US 20210174438 A1) discloses the COS bucket of the public cloud stores an MD5 value of the target model. However, Sandor does not explicitly teach or disclose the target model is hot-updated through a cloud object storage (COS) bucket of a public cloud, and whether the target model is to be hot-updated is determined based on the MD5 value; the COS storage bucket stores and manages all versions of the target model.
Baker (US 20230141471 A1) discloses organizing and tracking stock investment information node by node and determining whether hashed content can be inserted into a block of the blockchain using the md5 hashing algorithm. However, Baker does not explicitly teach or disclose the target model is hot-updated through a cloud object storage (COS) bucket of a public cloud, the COS bucket of the public cloud stores an MD5 value of the target model, and whether the target model is to be hot-updated is determined based on the MD5 value; the COS storage bucket stores and manages all versions of the target model.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ceesay et al. (US 20230153325 A1) discloses calculating the content MD5 value of the existing objects and verifying the integrity of the replaced object by passing the content MD5 value during the upload of the replicated object to the destination bucket
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara G Brown whose telephone number is (469)295-9145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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 at (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.
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights