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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority as a continuation of PCT/CN2022/111152 filed on 08/09/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/08/2025 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 computer-readable storage medium. Claim 20 is directed to a computer readable medium, which is directed to signals per se. The specification does not include a special definition nor does it limit the mediums to only non-transitory. Section 2106.03(I) of the MPEP states claims directed to transitory forms of signal transmission (signals per se) are not directed to any of the statutory categories of invention. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a patent eligible category of invention. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer readable medium.” Although the claim is not eligible under Prong 1, Examiner will continue the analysis of the claims as though they are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, claims 1-19 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.” 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.” 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.
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. 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.
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.
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:
Lin et al. (“Stock Trend Prediction Using Candlestick Charting and Ensemble Machine Learning Techniques With a Novelty Feature Engineering Scheme,” 2021) discloses providing a machine learning prediction method for each pattern of the stock performance
Du (“Segment-based ensemble learning model for stock price forecasting,” 2021) discloses utilizing an LSTM based multi-feature stock price prediction model
Patel (“How to Host Your Portfolio Website on Google Cloud Platform Storage Bucket for under $5?,” 2021) discloses managing a stock portfolio on a cloud platform including creating a google cloud storage bucket
Monteith (US 20220269601 A1) discloses receiving cloud object storage data using an MD5 algorithm
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