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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the application filed on 7/25/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for prior priority dates including:
This application is a CON of 19/257,080 07/01/2025
19/257,080 has PRO 63/678,329 08/01/2024
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.
All claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 10 and product Claim 15 (herein called Additional Independent Claims). The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of:
A method, comprising training a machine-learning model with financial data; determining a portion of the financial data to input to the trained model; predicting, with the machine-learning model in response to the portion of the financial data, future returns of a financial market during a time window; and constructing an investment portfolio of one or more assets of the financial market in response to the future returns.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “constructing an investment portfolio of one or more assets of the financial market in response to the future returns” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “electronic computing circuit” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
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 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.
Claims 1-19 listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (U.S. Patent Pub 2024/0087029) in view of Gebara (U.S. Patent Pub 2019/0325524) in view of Strongin (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0004653
Re claim 1 & 10 & 15: Carter discloses:
A method, comprising (see Carter Fig 4)
training a machine-learning model with financial data; (see Carter Fig 4 item 402-406)
determining a portion of the financial data to input to the trained model; (see Carter Fig 4 item 402-406 + Fig 1-3)
predicting, with the machine-learning model in response to the portion of the financial data, future returns of a financial market during a time window; and (see Carter Fig 4 item 408 + Fig 1-3)
constructing an investment portfolio of one or more assets of the financial market in response to the future returns. (see Carter Fig 4 item 410 + Fig 1-3)
Although Carter does not explicitly have time window, Gebara and Strongin more clearly claims “Time window” see Gebara Fig 15, item 1520 note Gebara NAV Net Asset Value includes a time component + Strongin Figure 5 item 525 + Figure 44
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Carter by adapting any features of Gebara and Strongin.
It is clear that one would be motivated by the teaching in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, both Carter teaches portfolio modeling Fig 4 that is adapted in Gebara system see Gebara Figure 15 and Strongin Figure 5.
Re claim 2 & 11: see claim 1 +
wherein training the machine-learning model comprises training the machine-learning model with a walk-forward cross-validation strategy. (see Carter Fig 4 item 402-406 + Fig 1-3 + Gebara para 0063-0068 + Strongin Figure 5 + para 0073 + 0108)
Re claim 3 & 12: see claim 1 +
wherein training the machine-learning model comprises training and cross-validating the machine-learning model with a number of folds. (see Carter Fig 4 item 402-406 + Fig 1-3 + Gebara para 0063-0068 + Strongin Figure 5)
Re claim 4 & 13: see claim 1 +
wherein determining a portion of the financial data to input to the trained model comprises iteratively removing least-important data features from the portion of the financial data until only a threshold number of data features are left. (see Carter Fig 4 item 402-406 + Fig 1-3 + Gebara para 0063-0068 + Strongin Figure 5)
Re claim 5: see claim 1 +
wherein training the machine-learning model and determining a portion of the financial data to input to the trained model comprises: training the model with the financial data; assigning, with the model, a respective importance score to each feature; removing at least one feature in response to the respective importance score of each of the at least one feature; and repeating the training, assigning, and removing at least one time. (see Carter Fig 4 item 402-406 + Fig 1-3 + Gebara para 0063-0068 + Strongin Figure 5)
Re claim 6: see claim 1 +
wherein training the machine-learning model and determining a portion of the financial data to input to the trained model comprises: training the model with the financial data; assigning, with the model, a respective importance score to each feature; removing at least one feature having a lowest importance score; and repeating the training, assigning, and removing at least one time. (see Carter Fig 4 item 402-406 + Fig 1-3 + Gebara para 0063-0068 + Strongin Figure 5)
Re claim 7 & 17: see claim 1 +
further comprising generating the financial data by: parsing and flattening a first set of financial data; combining the parsed-and-flattened first set of financial data with a second set of financial data. (see Carter Fig 4 item 402-406 + Fig 1-3 + Gebara para 0063-0068 + Strongin Figure 5)
Re claim 8 & 18: see claim 1 +
further comprising, before predicting, with the machine-learning model, the future returns of the financial market, evaluating the model using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. (see Carter Fig 4 item 402-406 + Fig 1-3 + Gebara para 0063-0068 + Strongin para 0094-0097 + Figure 5)
Re claim 9 & 19: see claim 1 +
wherein constructing the investment portfolio comprises estimating risk of the investment portfolio using a nested clustered optimization methodology. (see Carter Fig 4 item 402-406 + Fig 1-3 + Gebara para 0063-0068 + Strongin para 0094-0097 + Figure 5)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams, U.S. Patent Pub US 20150095264, discloses a method for structuring a financial index, a system and method for operating a financial index, and a system and method for structuring an investment portfolio.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights