DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 17 January 2025.
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.
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:
A …-implemented method for tracking aggregated quantified liquidity risk across a plurality of assets, the method comprising:
accessing data from a plurality of data sources including transactional data, wherein the transactional data comprises respective pricing information and reference data for respective assets in a plurality of assets;
measuring, with a statistical process, a respective change in liquidity of each of the respective assets based on at least one of an estimated projected trade volume capacity 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 to obtain respective measurements of respective changes in liquidity of the respective assets;
aggregating, at a portfolio level, the respective measurements of respective changes in liquidity of the respective assets to obtain an aggregated quantified indicator of liquidity risk for the portfolio,
wherein the aggregated quantified indicator of liquidity risk has a value in a bounded range from 0 to 100, and wherein a higher value in the bounded range of the aggregated quantified indicator of liquidity risk indicates a higher projected level of liquidity of the portfolio as compared with a lower value in the bounded range; and
generating a display for a …. or a file of the aggregated quantified indicator of liquidity risk.
21. A …for tracking aggregated quantified liquidity risk across a plurality of assets, the … comprising:
a …configured to:
access data from a plurality of data sources including transactional data, wherein the transactional data comprises respective pricing information and reference data for respective assets in a plurality of assets;
measure, with a statistical process, a respective change in liquidity of each of the respective assets based on at least one of an estimated projected trade volume capacity 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 asset to obtain respective measurements of respective changes in liquidity of the respective assets;
aggregate, at a portfolio level, the respective measurements of respective changes in liquidity of the respective assets to obtain an aggregated quantified indicator of liquidity risk for the portfolio, wherein the aggregated quantified indicator of liquidity risk has a value in a bounded range from 0 to 100, and wherein a higher value in the bounded range of the aggregated quantified indicator of liquidity risk indicates a higher projected level of liquidity of the portfolio as compared with a lower value in the bounded range; and
generate a display for a …or a file of the aggregated quantified indicator of liquidity risk.
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… measuring… aggregating …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. displaying) 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: (graphical user interface, data sources, computer, system, processor, display, file ) 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)) (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [60-62] computer system…graphical user interface…any suitable
hardware…software…. general purpose device)
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 the aggregated quantified indicator (Claim 2); respective measurements (Claims 3, 14, ); .. ratio… (Claims 4, 9); ..the ranking… (Claims 6, 8, 11, 13, ); …respective asset…(Claim 15); … the aggregating… (Claims 17 and 18); …the monitoring…(Claim 19); … 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, [60-62] computer system…graphical user interface…any suitable
hardware…software…. general purpose device)
Therefore, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10453142 B2 ( includes modelling risk indicators including liquidity risk for banks)
US 20100125534 A1
Timothy C. Johnson, Volume, liquidity, and liquidity risk, Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 87, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 388-417, ISSN 0304-405X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.03.006.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X07001985)
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