DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The following is a final office action in response to the application filed 26 May 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-5, 9, 14, and 17-21 have been received and acknowledged.
The applicant's claim for benefit as a:
DIV of 18/388,764 (filed 11/10/2023; ABN 5/14/25) which is a CON of 17/962,395 (filed 10/07/2022 now US PAT 11854083 issued 12/26/25) which is a CON of 16/910,028 (filed 06/23/2020 now US PAT 11551305 issued 1/10/25) is a CON of 13/677,277 11/14/2012; ABN 10/7/2020
which has PRO 61/629,227 filed 11/14/2011
has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1)That the instant claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because the instant claimed invention is “ integrated into a practical application.’ (Applicant’s response, 13-15) (2) Referencing the Specification [3-11], [0054]-[0068]; [0105]-[0109]; [0134]-[0153]; [0162]-[0305], Applicant further asserts the instant recited claims further address the “technical challenges…with regard to how electronic processes could be applied to quantify the amorphous concept of liquidity risk…identifying an appropriate electronic computational mechanism that was even capable of capturing liquidity risk in a meaningful and repeatable manner... Additional technical challenges arise in translating that quantification mechanism into a practical computer-implemented process in view of technical constraints imposed by the high-dimensionality of data in real-world financial markets….” (Applicant’s response, 15-16). Applicant asserts that the recited claims are “….a concrete improvement to data analytics and high-dimensionality data processing technologies that transforms multi-dimensional financial data into a composite quantified liquidity risk indicator … through a series of specified processing operations…”(Applicant’s response, 16) Applicant further argues that the ‘data’ is ‘transformed’ and “….this processing pipeline improves computer-implemented functionality pertaining to data analytics and high-dimensional data processing, as well as the fields of fintech software and market analytics…” (Applicant’s response, 17) Further referencing additional portions of the Specification, Applicant additional argues that the “…specialized processing steps enable multidimensional datasets… to be processed…”, use several “technology-based features” and integrate “any alleged abstract idea into a practical application in computer-implemented financial data analytics….”(Applicant’s response, 18-20) (3) Applicant additionally argues that the recited ‘ordered combination’ of “processing steps” integrate the ’claimed invention into a practical application and/or which amounts to ‘significantly more’. (Applicant’s response, 20) Applicant also argues that the preamble “...identifies a technological processing objective…” and that the recited ordered combination includes meaningful constraints and conversion of ‘…multidimensional financial data into structured, asset level measures of liquidity changes…improves computer-implemented financial data analytics…an "ordered combination" of steps that amounts to an improvement in technology or an improvement to a technical field under both the "practical application" analysis of Step 2A and the "significantly more" analysis under Step 2B…”(Applicant’s response, 21-26). (4) Applicant additionally analogizes the instant recited claim to the patent eligible claims of Example 42 by arguing that the exemplary Claim 1 “…improves computerized financial data processing by transforming multi-dimensional transactional financial data,
in which liquidity is not directly observable, into statistically generated asset-level measurements of liquidity changes and then into a composite quantified liquidity risk indicator comprising a bounded, unitary value that reflects liquidity risk conditions across a plurality of assets…the claimed invention uses a particular sequence of computer-implemented operations to solve a data-processing problem arising from heterogeneous information that is not directly usable in its raw form, rather than merely stating an abstract result and instructing that it be performed on a generic computer…integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application…. provides a specific improvement in computer-implemented financial data analytics….”(Applicant’s response, 21-28) (5) Independent claim 21 and Claims dependent on Claim 1 are also patent eligible for the reasons argued with regard to Claim 1. (Applicant’s response, 28).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection previously and below, the recited claims are insufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Applicant’s own arguments assert that the instant claims are directed to ‘financial data analytics’ and the data processing. Rather as stated in the rejection this is ‘apply it’ (MPEP 2106.05(f)); the technological elements are recited at a high level of generality. This is not a technological improvement. At most this is an improvement to the abstract idea.
To the extent Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s), when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. (Applicant’s arguments 1-5)
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 1-21 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, (1) 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, (2a) 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 (2b), 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. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method and the system of tracking aggregated quantified liquidity risk liquidity risk across a plurality of assets. In the instant case, Claims 1-20 are directed to a process. Claim 21 is directed to a system.
(2a) Prong 1: Tracking aggregated quantified liquidity risk is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (methods of organizing human activity, [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
(Currently Amended) A …method for applying dimensionality- reducing processing operations on multi-dimensional financial data to obtain a composite quantified liquidity risk indicator that reflects liquidity risk conditions across a grouping of assets,wherein the methodis performed … … on …, and the method comprises:
accessing multi-dimensional financial data from a plurality of data sources, the multi-dimensional financial data including transactional datathat comprises, for respective assets included in a plurality of assets, one or more data series of values over a period of time, wherein a liquidity of the respective assets is not directly observable in the multi-dimensional financial data;
executing a liquidity variation measurement function that generates, using a statistical process on the one or more data series of values over the period of time, multiple asset-level measurements of liquidity changes corresponding to the plurality of assets, wherein a respective change in liquidity of each of the respective assets is based on at least one of an estimatedan estimated return value of the respective asset, an estimated turnover value of the respective asset, a volatility measure of the respective asset, a volume measure of the respective asset, an estimated volatility of the respective asset, an estimated time to liquidate the respective asset, and an estimated cost to liquidate the respective asset,and the multiple asset-level measurements of liquidity changes include respective measurements of respective changes in liquidity of the respective assets;
executing a risk quantification function that transforms the multiple asset-level measurements of liquidity changes into a composite quantified liquidity risk indicator comprising a unitary value that reflects liquidity risk conditions across the plurality of assets;
wherein the unitary value of the composite quantified liquidity risk indicator has a bounded range, and wherein a first value towards one end of the bounded range indicates a higher projected level of liquidity of the plurality of assets as compared with asecond value towards an opposite end of the bounded range; and
generating, for …to …
a time-based representation of the composite quantified liquidity risk indicator which reflects changes in liquidity risk conditions over the period of time.
21. (Currently Amended) A … for applying dimensionality-reducing processing operations on multi-dimensional financial data to obtain a composite quantified liquidity risk indicator that reflects liquidity risk conditions across a grouping of assets, the …comprising:
…; and
… to perform functions comprising:
accessing multi-dimensional financial data from a plurality of data sources the multi-dimensional financial data including transactional data
that comprises, for respective assets included in a plurality of assets, one or more data series of values over a period of time, wherein a liquidity of the respective assets is not directly observable in the multi-dimensional financial data;
executing a liquidity variation measurement function that generates, using a statistical process on the one or more data series of values over a period of time, multiple asset-level measurements of liquidity changes corresponding to the plurality of respective assets, wherein a respective change in liquidity of each of the respective assets is based on at least one of an estimated trade volume capacity of the respective asset, an estimated return value of the respective asset, an estimated turnover value of the respective asset, a volatility measure of the respective asset, a volume measure of the respective asset, an estimated projected volatility of the respective asset, an estimated projected time to liquidate the respective asset, and an estimated projected cost to liquidate the respective assets and the multiple asset-level measurements of liquidity changes include respective measurements of respective changes in liquidity of the respective assets;
executing a risk quantification function that transforms the multiple asset- level measurements of liquidity changes into a composite quantified liquidity risk indicator comprising a unitary value that reflects liquidity risk conditions across the plurality of assets;
wherein the unitary value of the composite quantified liquidity risk indicator has a bounded range, and wherein a first value towards one end of the bounded range indicates a higher projected level of liquidity of the plurality of assets as compared with a lower second value towards an opposite end of the bounded range; and
generating, for …to a… a time-based representation of the composite quantified liquidity risk indicator which reflects changes in liquidity risk conditions over the period of time.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity.
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of accessing… executing… executing …generating… do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. generating …for transmission.. a.. representation…stored) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-20 are directed to a process. Claim 21 is directed to a system.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (computer,, instructions, non-transitory storage devices, processing devices, graphical user interface, data sources, computer, system, processor, display, file, network, computing device, API ) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [60-63] computer system…processors…graphical user interface…any suitable hardware…software…memory…communication interfaces… general purpose device…non-transitory…network….)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claims 2-20 introduce the additional elements of wherein clauses further defining elements composite quantified liquidity risk indicator (Claim 2); respective measurements (Claims 3, 14, ); .. ratio… (Claims 4, 9); ..the ranking… (Claims 6, 8, 11, 13, ); …respective asset…(Claim 15); … executing the risk quantification function… (Claims 17 and 18); generating… updating…the monitoring…(Claim 19); … value assigned to the index….(Claim 20) and further steps of ranking (Claims 5, 10)…generating… (Claims 7, 12, 16) This element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use(See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because the elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [60-63] computer system…processors…graphical user interface…any suitable hardware…software…memory…communication interfaces… general purpose device…non-transitory…network….)
Therefore, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights