DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Jun. 10, 2025, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Interviews conducted solely for the purpose of “sounding out” the examiner, including by local counsel acting only as a conduit for another practitioner, are not permitted under MPEP § 713.03. The Office is strictly enforcing established interview practice, and applicants should ensure that every interview request is directed toward advancing prosecution on the merits in compliance with MPEP §§ 713 and 713.03.
For after-final Interview requests, supervisory approval is required before an interview may be granted. Each AIR should specifically explain how the After-Final Interview request will advance prosecution—for example, by identifying targeted arguments responsive to the rejection of record, alleged defects in the examiner’s analysis, proposed claim amendments, or another concrete basis for discussion. See MPEP § 713. If the AIR form’s character limits prevent inclusion of all pertinent details, Applicants may send a contemporaneous email to the examiner at James.Miller1@uspto.gov.
The examiner is generally available Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
For any GRANTED Interview Request, Applicant can expect an email within 24 hours confirming an interview slot from the dates/times proposed and providing collaboration tool access instructions. For any DENIED Interview Request, the record will include a communication explaining the reason for the denial.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Jun. 10, 2025, was filed before the mailing of a first office action on the merits and therefore, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b)(3). Accordingly, the IDS has been considered.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–18 are pending and examined with Claims 1 and 10 in independent form.
This is a first action on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Consideration was given to interpreting “hierarchically organized temporal processing streams” under § 112(f) but did not. A PHOSITA would understand that “streams” in the neural network ML arts has sufficient structural established meaning. A “data … streams” connotes a sequence of data elements processed in order, data pathway, a processing pipeline, or channel and is unlike “module” or “unit,” which has no structural meaning. MPEP § 2181.
Consideration was given to interpreting “quarterly attention level,” “weekly attention level,” and “intraday attention level,” under § 112(f) but did not. A PHOSITA would understand that “attention level” in the neural network ML arts has sufficient established structural meaning. An “attention level” refers to a layer or tier of the attention mechanism. An attention mechanism is an ML technique that allows a neural network to selectively focus on the most relevant parts of its input when generating an output, rather than treating all input equally. Mathematically, it computes attention weights using a scaled dot product. See, Vaswani, et al. “Attention is All You Need,” 2017 (cite on PTO-892).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Functional Nature of Limitations
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language that both (1) fails to recite sufficiently definite structure and (2) recites a function without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
adaptive attention controller (Claims 2, 11)
Examiner finds “adaptive attention controller” does not have a well understood structural meaning in the computer technology field. There is no evidence—in the form of dictionary definitions, clear specification definitions, or otherwise—that “adaptive attention controller” was reasonably understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to refer to structure or a class of structures. Instead, a skilled artisan would understand the functional terms “adaptive attention controller” to be any structure capable of performing the claimed function. The prefixes “adaptive attention” do not impart structure because it merely describes each unit’s intended functionality. The “adaptive attention controller” limitation is further drafted in the same format as a traditional means-plus-function limitation, and merely replaces the term “means” with “nonce” word “controller,” which is akin to “’mechanism,' 'element,' 'device,' and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs” invoking § 112(f). Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Thus, neither the words of the claim nor the specification suggested a structural limitation that might serve to cabin the scope of the functional term, thus supporting the conclusion that the claim limitation was written in means-plus-function format. MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Disclosure of Corresponding Structure
Having found that the aforementioned claim terms are subject to interpretation under § 112(f), next, it is determined whether Applicant’s Specification discloses sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Examiner finds it does.
Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. First, the function must be identified. Second, the corresponding structure, if any, disclosed in Applicant’s Specification that corresponds to the claimed function must be determined. When multiple functions are claimed, Applicant must disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform all of the claimed functions. If the Applicant fails to disclose any corresponding structure or adequate corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite.
When evaluating § 112(f) limitations in software related claims for definiteness under § 112(b), a specialized function must be supported in the specification by the computer and the algorithm that the computer uses to perform the claimed specialized function. However, a non-specialized function requires no more support in the specification than a general-purpose computer or a known computer component that is recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as typically including structure and non-specialized programming to perform the claimed function. Generally, it is only in rare circumstances that an algorithm need not be disclosed. MPEP § 2181(II)(B). Rare circumstances are when functionality is coextensive with a microprocessor such as the functions of receiving, storing, or processing of data. Id. (Katz1 exception).
The following claim limitations are interpreted under § 112(f) along with their corresponding structure from Applicant’s Specification. For each claim limitation interpreted under § 112(f), an evaluation for definiteness under § 112(b) is also performed.
Claimed Functions
The “adaptive attention controller” performs the functions of:
adjusts weights based on market volatility indicators (Claims 2,11)
Corresponding Structure
The structure is an algorithm implementing “a four-stage process: (1) volatility indicator aggregation, (2) regime classification, (3) weight calculation, and (4) smooth transition implementation.” Spec. ¶ 88. The four-stage process is further described in Spec. ¶¶ 89, 90, 91, 92; see also Fig. 34 and associated text ¶ 343.
Evaluation of Definitiveness under § 112(b)
Specialized Functions: Examiner finds functions (1) is specialized function requiring both a computer and the corresponding algorithm. A computer system is disclosed, Spec. ¶ 13, and Applicant’s Specification discloses an algorithm sufficient to perform the specialized functions.
Drawings
Figs. 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, and 44 are objected to because numbers, letters, and reference characters are less than .32 cm. (1⁄8 inch) in height. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). For example, in Fig. 43, between step 4303 and steps 4304, 4305, 4306, and 4307, arrows with text are shown that is smaller than .32 cm. (1⁄8 inch) in height.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–18 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–9 recite a “computer system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 10–18 recite a method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.”
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative [“Rep. Claim 1”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations2 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] 1. A computer system, comprising: a hardware memory and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute software instructions that:
[B] receive multimodal data comprising time-series data, textual data, sentiment data, and structured tabular data;
[C] simultaneously and in parallel distribute [transmit] the multimodal data into exactly three hierarchically organized temporal processing streams comprising a quarterly attention level configured for seasonal pattern recognition, a weekly attention level configured for earnings cycle detection, and an intraday attention level configured for real-time trading pattern analysis;
[D] process each temporal level [data] using scale-specific attention mechanisms with different sequence lengths and attention windows optimized for the respective temporal granularities;
[E] implement bidirectional cross-temporal gradient flow between all three attention levels such that attention weight adjustments at one temporal scale automatically influence attention computations at the other two scales;
[F] dynamically weight the contribution of each temporal level based on real-time market volatility indicators; and
[G] generate a temporally-unified representation that preserves both short-term market dynamics and long-term trends within a single data structure suitable for vector-quantized variational autoencoder processing.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 1 recites “generate a temporally-unified representation that preserves both short-term market dynamics and long-term trends within a single data structure suitable for vector-quantized variational autoencoder [downstream] processing [forecasting]” in Limitation G, which recites a fundamental economic principle/practice under the organizing human activity exception because the “temporally-unified representation” id for data comprising “seasonal pattern recognition,” “earnings cycle detection,” “real-time trading pattern analysis” (Limitation C) “dynamically weight[ed] … based on “real-time market volatility indicators” (Limitation F), which constitutes financial market analysis and prediction. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). Limitations B–F are the requires steps to “generate a temporally-unified representation” and therefore, recite the same exception. Id.
Alternatively, Limitations D, E, F recite a mathematical relationship under the mathematical concepts exception because "a process that employs mathematical algorithms [Limitations D, E, F] to manipulate existing information [Limitations A, B (collecting data)] to generate additional information [Limitation G] is an abstract idea.” Digitech Image Techs. LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv) (“The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula.”)
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 1 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: A computer system, comprising: a hardware memory, processor, and software instructions.
Regarding the computer system, comprising: a hardware memory, processor, and software instructions, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., Spec. ¶ 13 (generic computer system with hardware memory and software on non-transitory media); ¶¶ 131–138 (high-level multimodal deep learning core with standard preprocessor, core, and post-processor blocks); ¶¶ 459–471 (exemplary, generic computing environment with conventional processors, memory, storage, interfaces, and networked/cloud variants). The generic processor, here, appears to perform calculations (functions) that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶ 459. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow—not an improvement to the computer.
The displaying steps, Limitation G, fails to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements, a practical application, or inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group). Further, requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer also does not provide a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Limitation A describes the hardware memory and processor executing software instructions to perform the steps of the claimed invention, Limitation B–G, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
The critical question under MPEP § 2106.05(a) is whether the claim focuses on "an improvement in computers as tools" or "an improvement in an abstract idea that used computers as tools." The specification's own framing answers this: the problem is systems that produce "suboptimal prediction accuracy and incomplete market understanding" (¶ 9). The solution “enables superior market prediction and risk assessment … to improve forecasting, portfolio optimization, and decision-making (¶ 71). These are improvements in financial analysis — an abstract domain — not improvements in how a computer processes data. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) further reinforces this conclusion: "[t]he advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particularly assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions." As drafted, the present claims are the financial-data equivalent. Additionally, Examiner further calls Applicant’s attention to SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2747 (2019). InvestPic's claims recited: (1) selecting financial data, (2) generating a resampled statistical distribution using a novel technique, and (3) displaying results. The Federal Circuit held them ineligible: "the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter." The structural parallel to the present claims is direct.
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f), (a). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claim 10 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claim 10 contains no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claim 10 is also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec., ¶¶ 117, 120 (steps/functions may be performed in any order); ¶¶ 13, 131–138, 459–471 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.). Where each individual additional element is conventional, the combination must itself provide something more — some specific, unconventional technical improvement — to save eligibility. It does not here. Applicant’s Specification expressly frames the problem and solution in terms of improved financial analysis outcomes (better “forecasting and risk assessment,” “portfolio optimization,” and “market understanding”), not in terms of any improvement to computer architecture, processing efficiency, memory utilization, or data throughput. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 71. The specification makes clear that any known computing platform can perform the claimed functions. Spec. ¶¶ 459–471. This distinguishes the claims from eligible improvements to computer functionality such as those in Enfish, where the claim was directed to a specific improvement in computer databases, not to using a computer to improve financial analysis.
The functions performed by the claimed “computer system” (receiving multimodal data, distributing it into processing streams, generating weighted representations, and outputting a unified representation) are all standard functions of a generic computer—receiving, processing, and outputting data. The mathematical attention and gradient computations are the mathematical abstract idea itself, not an improvement to the computer. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes”).
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the additional elements of Representative Claim 1, individually and in combination, amount to no more than applying the identified abstract idea using well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, Rep. Claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept.
Rep. Claim 1 is not substantially different than Independent Claim 10 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 1. Independent Claim 10 contains no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claim 10 also does not recite an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 11, 12 all recite “wherein” clauses that further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claims but contains the additional elements of: adaptive attention controller” that adjusts temporal weights based on market volatility, and a rule that higher volatility increases intraday weight. As interpreted under § 112(f), this controller is software implementing a multi-stage volatility-driven weighting algorithm (aggregation of indicators, regime classification, regime-specific weight matrices, and smoothing), all operating on financial market data. Spec. ¶¶ 88, 89, 90, 91, 92; see also Fig. 34 and associated text ¶ 343. These are refinements to the abstract financial-prediction model itself, not improvements to any computer technology. They merely change what financial math is done, not how the computer functions. Because they simply recite additional mathematical and rules, they recite an abstract idea. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 4, 5, 13, 14 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. Claims 4, 5, 13, 14 add only the generation of cross modal attention heat map visualizations and color-coded, real-time attention intensity indicators. The Specification confirms these are conventional data visualizations (i.e., a two-dimensional matrix with modality rows, temporal columns, and color scales that update periodically) and implemented as part of the system’s “interpretable AI analysis.” Spec. ¶¶ 71, 82, 346–352, 423–432. Presenting computed attention weights to a user in heat map form is merely displaying the results of the abstract analysis. As such, it does not alter how the computer stores, processes, or transmits data at a technical level. Such post solution display of information is itself part of the abstract idea of analyzing and presenting financial information. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 6, 7, 15, 16 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. Claims 6, 7, 15, 16 further require “market regime detection using a finite state machine” and classification of market conditions into bull, bear, high-volatility, low-volatility, and crisis states. The Specification implements this as a standard finite state machine driven by known financial indicators (VIX, trend, sentiment, liquidity) with threshold-based transition rules. Spec. ¶¶ 18, 83, 88, 89, 90. This is simply another layer of mathematical processing of financial data that labels market conditions and feeds those labels back into the same abstract prediction framework. This is not an improvement to the underlying computer, memory, or networking. Because these limitations only specify additional rules for organizing and characterizing financial information (which state the market is in), they recite an abstract idea. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 8, 9, 17, 18 all recite “wherein” clauses or limitations that further limit the abstract idea of the Independent Claims and contain no additional elements. Claims 8, 9, 17, 18 add assessing “data quality for each modality using quality metrics” and excluding or down-weighting low-quality data sources. The Specification describes a data-quality assessment subsystem that computes metrics such as completeness, freshness, and accuracy for each modality and then uses those scores to filter or reweight inputs before they enter the same multimodal attention pipeline. Spec. 23, 357–364, 367, 368, 382–383, 411–422. This is again just information filtering and reweighting based on rule-defined metrics and business logic, with no change to the generic computer components or their basic operation. As such, these dependent claims recite additional aspects of the abstract idea itself—how to select and prioritize financial data—rather than any technical improvement. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1–18 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 1 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Examiner Statement of Prior Art—No Prior Art Rejections
Note: For prior art search, the filing date of Jun. 10, 2025, is used. The ADS identifies continuity to five (5) prior applications, but Examiner was unable to identify support for “weekly attention level” as recited in Independent Claims of the present application, in the continuity chain identified by the ADS. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.”)
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application. While some individual features of Claims 1–18 may be shown in the prior art of record—no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of Claims 1–18. Rep. Claim 1 recites:
receive multimodal data comprising time-series data, textual data, sentiment data, and structured tabular data; simultaneously and in parallel distribute the multimodal data into exactly three hierarchically organized temporal processing streams comprising a quarterly attention level configured for seasonal pattern recognition, a weekly attention level configured for earnings cycle detection, and an intraday attention level configured for real-time trading pattern analysis; process each temporal level using scale-specific attention mechanisms with different sequence lengths and attention windows optimized for the respective temporal granularities; implement bidirectional cross-temporal gradient flow between all three attention levels such that attention weight adjustments at one temporal scale automatically influence attention computations at the other two scales; dynamically weight the contribution of each temporal level based on real-time market volatility indicators; and generate a temporally-unified representation that preserves both short-term market dynamics and long-term trends within a single data structure suitable for vector-quantized variational autoencoder processing.
The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are:
Zhu et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0134939) is pertinent because it discloses a deep learning-based method for fusing multi-source data using a multi-scale cooperative multimodal transformer (MCMult) that performs cross-modal, multi-scale information fusion over heterogeneous input sequences to produce a fused representation for forecasting future energy usage. Abstract. Zhu does not disclose simultaneously and in parallel distribute the multimodal data into exactly three hierarchically organized temporal processing streams comprising a quarterly attention level configured for seasonal pattern recognition, a weekly attention level configured for earnings cycle detection, and an intraday attention level configured for real-time trading pattern analysis or that the output is specifically designated as input to a vector-quantized variational autoencoder.
Achar et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0148266) is pertinent because it discloses a time series forecasting architecture with multiple parallel encoders that capture seasonal correlations (seasonal lags) and feed them, along with decoder states, into an attention layer and a decoder for multi step prediction, primarily in the context of generic seasonal time series rather than financial market specific multimodal data. Achar A1 teaches parallel seasonal encoders but does not disclose simultaneously and in parallel distribute the multimodal data into exactly three hierarchically organized temporal processing streams comprising a quarterly attention level configured for seasonal pattern recognition, a weekly attention level configured for earnings cycle detection, and an intraday attention level configured for real-time trading pattern analysis.
FOR: Int. Pub. No. WO 2021/094920 A1 is pertinent because it discloses fusing multimodal data, including a numerical time-series modality and a time-stamped textual modality, by separately encoding each modality into vectors and using a recurrent neural network (AsyncLSTM) to iteratively and asynchronously fuse their encoded features into vectors that represent temporal behavior. ¶¶ 1, 4–6, 31–34, 42–45. FOR does not disclose simultaneously and in parallel distribute the multimodal data into exactly three hierarchically organized temporal processing streams comprising a quarterly attention level configured for seasonal pattern recognition, a weekly attention level configured for earnings cycle detection, and an intraday attention level configured for real-time trading pattern analysis or that the output is specifically designated as input to a vector-quantized variational autoencoder.
NPL: Ding, Qianggang, et al. “Hierarchical Multi-Scale Gaussian Transformer for Stock Movement Prediction,” 2020 is pertinent because it discloses a Transformer-based architecture for stock movement prediction with a three-block hierarchical self-attenuation scheme that explicitly learns intra-day, intra-week, and global features of financial time series using Trading Gap Splitter masks (¶ 4.4). It therefor teaches a three-level financial temporal hierarchy implemented with attention, which is analogous to the claimed quarterly, weekly, intraday structure of the claims but with “global” instead of quarterly and applied to price and volume data (¶¶ 4.4, 5.4). NPL does not disclose simultaneously and in parallel distribute the multimodal data into exactly three hierarchically organized temporal processing streams comprising a quarterly attention level configured for seasonal pattern recognition, a weekly attention level configured for earnings cycle detection, and an intraday attention level configured for real-time trading pattern analysis or that the output is specifically designated as input to a vector-quantized variational autoencoder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining “The Katz Exception”)
2 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
Prosecution Insights