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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to filings received 02/24/2025; and claims earliest priority from 10-2024-0066288, filed 05/22/2024.
Claims 1-9 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 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites a method of investment evaluation using an estimated value based on a reference value, comprising steps of: (i) determining a reference value selected from historical or future values of an underlying asset; and (ii) converting, based on a calculated variability ratio, a valuation of an investment asset set into an estimated value. These steps involve collecting information (e.g., historical or future asset values), analyzing the information (e.g., applying rules and calculating variability rations), and generating a result (e.g., an estimated value). Such operations constitute concepts relating to organizing human activity (e.g., financial evaluation and investment analysis) and mental processes (e.g., evaluation, judgment, and mathematical calculation), which are recognized categories of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2); see also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. and SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC. The claimed investment evaluation and valuation processing further constitute fundamental economic practices and methods of organizing human activity.
The dependent claims do not alter this conclusion. For example, claim 2 further specifies selecting a highest historical value, which is an additional data selection rule, claim 5 recites calculating metrics such as growth rate or slope, which are mathematical concepts; claim 6 recites displaying data, which is insignificant post-solution activity; claim 8 recites time series analysis, which is mathematical processing of data; and claim 9 recites statistical processing (e.g., mean, variance, standard deviation), which are mathematical calculations. These limitations merely refine or add detail to the abstract idea and do not change its character. Accordingly, these additional limitations recite mathematical concepts, data analysis, and insignificant post-solution activity, which fall within the abstract idea and do not add a meaningful limitation beyond the judicial exception.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are implemented on a generic computer and do not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality or to another technology. The steps are performed suing generic processing (e.g., determining, converting, calculating, displaying), and the output (estimated value) is merely information for decision-making. There is no recited technological improvement in how the computer performs these operations, not any particular machine or transformation beyond generic data manipulation. Accordingly, the claims amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, which does not constitute a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(a),(f)).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, including the use of a computer to perform the recited steps, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The claims recite generic data processing functions (receiving data, analyzing data, calculating values, and displaying results), which courts have found insufficient to confer eligibility. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The dependent claims similarly add only conventional mathematical or data processing techniques and do not provide an inventive concept.
The recited computer performs only generic functions of receiving, processing, and displaying data, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously recognized by the courts.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim elements amount to no more than the abstract idea implemented using generic computing components performing their ordinary functions. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1-9 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John C. Hiatt (US 2008/0154790 A1, herein Hiatt) in view of Christine Pleiman Wootton et al. (US 10,810,672 B2, herein Wootton).
As per claim 1, a method, executed by a computer, of investment evaluation using an estimated value based on a reference value, the method comprising:
determining, according to a predetermined rule, a reference value selected from either historical values or future reference values of an underlying asset value, the underlying asset value corresponding to a price of an underlying asset chosen as a representative investment asset or a related benchmark index from one or more investment assets included in an investment asset set (Hiatt ¶¶ [5 & 15] teaches obtaining historical values of an underlying asset, specifically “obtaining the daily closing prices of derivative investment instrument since an inception data”, and further defines index values where Index.sub.i is an initial time period closing index value; Index.sub.t is a post-initial time period closing index value; p.sub.i is an initial time period closing price for the front-month derivative investment instrument; and p.sub.t is a post-initial time period closing price for a front-month derivative investment instrument; which correspond to reference values derived from historical underlying asset prices; additionally, such values are derived from an “underlying asset”, thereby disclosing the underlying asset value corresponding to a price and its use as a benchmark. ); and
converting, based on a variability ratio calculated under an assumption that the underlying asset value at an evaluation time changes to the determined reference value, a valuation of the investment asset set, and using the resulting converted valuation as an estimated value based on a reference value (Hiatt ¶¶ [15, 17 & 26], where Hiatt teaches converting values based on a variability ratio through the disclosed formula found on ¶ [26] called equation 3, which explicitly uses a ratio of change in underlying asset prices, and further confirms repeated calculation of such converted values; and additionally that the resulting value is a dynamically calculated value reflecting performance of the underlying asset over time, i.e., “calculating a value reflecting a volatility arbitrage benchmark… having a dynamic value over a predefined time period”, which corresponds to the claimed converted valuation of the investment asset set.)
While Hiatt does not explicitly disclose using the converted values as estimated values for investment evaluation, Wootton further teaches using calculated values as estimated values for evaluating investment portfolios, as evidenced by disclosure of generating quantitative risk metrics such as “market risk rating” based on financial data, and using such values to evaluate and adjust an investment portfolio (Wootton column 6 lines 31-39 and columns 9-10).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the statistical evaluation and risk analysis techniques of Wootton into the system of Hiatt in order to improve accuracy, robustness and interpretability of investment evaluation, since Hiatt already computes time-based benchmark values and Wootton provides well-known techniques for analyzing such financial assets using derived statistical metrics.
As per claim 2, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton teach the method of claim 1, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton further teach wherein the predetermined rule comprises selecting, as the reference value, a highest price recorded among the historical values of the underlying asset value from a start of an investment up to just before the evaluation time (Hiatt ¶ [11] teaches selection and use of historical values for index construction and adjustment over time; and Wootton column 10 lines 20-33 teaches evaluating financial data using statistical measures (including maxima and comparative values), rendering it obvious to select the highest historical value as a reference value).
The motivation to combine the references is the same as seen above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton teach the method of claim 2, Hiatt further teaches wherein when the underlying asset value is at the highest price at the evaluation time, an evaluated value of assets held, which is a valuation of the one or more investment assets included in the investment asset set at the time of evaluation, equals to the estimated value based on a reference value (Hiatt ¶¶ [15, 17 & 26] teaches that the calculated benchmark value is derived directly from the underlying asset prices and reflects performance over time, i.e., “calculating a value reflecting a volatility arbitrage benchmark… having a dynamic value over a predefined time period” ¶ [17], and further discloses repeated calculation of index values based on underlying price changes ¶ [26]. Accordingly, when the underlying asset reaches a highest value, the resulting calculated benchmark corresponds to or represents the evaluated value of the investment assets at the time.).
As per claim 4, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton teach the method of claim 1, Hiatt further teaches wherein the investment asset set is an investment product whose composition of asset types and quantities may vary over time, and is used to evaluate an investment performance of the investment product (Hiatt ¶¶ [3 & 13] teaches that derivative investment instruments are based on underlying assets such as stocks, indices, and other financial instruments ¶ [3], and further teaches that “any variable whose value is subject to change over time may serve as the underlying asset” ¶ [13], thereby disclosing an investment asset set whose composition and values vary over time and are used for performance evaluation).
As per claim 5, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton teach the method of claim 1, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton further teach further comprising: calculating and utilizing one or more metrics of the estimated value based on a reference value, the metrics including at least one of a growth rate, a slope, or a derivative value (Hiatt ¶ [26] teaches calculating values based on changes in underlying asset prices using a formula, which explicitly relies on changes over time (i.e., differences between price values), thereby corresponding to growth rates and slopes of the underlying asset value; which inherently produces derived values corresponding to growth rates, slopes, or derivative-based measures of change. While Hiatt does not explicitly label such values as “metrics”, Wootton columns 9-10 further teaches generating quantitative metrics based on financial data, including “market risk rating” and related calculated measures, thereby demonstrating calculation and use of derived metrics for evaluating investment data).
The motivation to combine the references is the same as seen above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton teach the method of claim 1, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton further teach further comprising: displaying, in graph form, a historical record of the estimated value based on a reference value up to the evaluation time, or a historical record of change rates of the estimated value based on a reference value (Hiatt ¶ [17] teaches that the calculated benchmark index represents performance of an underlying asset over time, and such time-based index values inherently form a historical record of values suitable for graphical representation. Wootton column 6 lines 1-39 further teaches presenting such investment-related data via graphical user interfaces and visual representations of portfolio and risk data (e.g., glide path maps and displayed portfolio data), thereby teaching displaying historical investment-related values in graphical form).
The motivation to combine the references is the same as seen above in claim 1.
As per claim 7, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton teach the method of claim 1, Hiatt further teaches if the investment asset set includes Bitcoin, the underlying asset is Bitcoin (Hiatt ¶ [13] teaches that any underlying asset may be used for the disclosed calculation, including financial instruments and assets whose value changes over time. Accordingly, selecting Bitcoin as the underlying asset would have been an obvious implementation of the discloses system, as Bitcoin is a known asset with time-varying price).
As per claim 8, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton teach the method of claim 1, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton further teach wherein the variability ratio is a unique value predicting a rate of change in a value of each investment asset when the underlying asset value reaches the determined reference value, and is derived via time series analysis based on historical price change data of the underlying asset and each investment asset (Hiatt ¶ [26] calculating values using changes in underlying asset prices over time, which inherently uses historical price data and ratios of change between time periods; such calculations inherently rely on time-series data of underlying asset prices across multiple time points. Wootton columns 9-10 further teaches analyzing financial data over time to generate quantitative measures of risk performance, thereby evidencing use of time-based data analysis to derive predictive or evaluative metrics, corresponding to the claimed variability ratio derived from such time-series data).
The motivation to combine the references is the same as seen above in claim 1.
As per claim 9, the combination of Hiatt and Wootton teach the method of claim 1, Wootton further teaches further comprising:
performing statistical processing on one or more of a mean, variance, and standard deviation derived from historical data or increase/decrease records of the estimated value based on a reference value up to the evaluation time, and displaying the processed results in one or more formats selected from a graph, a table, or textual form (Wootton columns 9-10 teach generating quantitative risk metrics based on financial data, which inherently involves statistical analysis of financial data, including measures such as averages, variability, and dispersion derived from historical performance. Additionally, column 6 lines 31-39 disclose presenting such processed data via user interfaces and graphical outputs, thereby teaching displaying results in graphical, tabular, or textual formats).
The motivation to combine the references is the same as seen above in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights