DETAILED ACTION
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 reply to the communication(s) filed on 04 September 2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a system and method for trading and risk management via collapse dynamics. These are a machine and process which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1 and 2:
Claim 1:
“a plurality of quantum-inspired indicators derived from wave-interference principles, including price curvature, phase interference, amplitude-amplitude interaction, amplitude-charge interaction, and volatility-price correlation;”
“a genetic algorithm optimizer configured to assign dynamic weights to said indicators on a per-asset basis through iterative selection, crossover, and mutation; and”
“a decision engine configured to generate buy, sell, or neutral trading signals based on the weighted composite indicator output, wherein the system adapts to asset-specific regimes and identifies non-tradable states.”
Claim 2:
“(a) computing quantum-inspired indicators from market data;”
“(b) applying a genetic algorithm to evolve indicator weightings;”
“(c) generating a composite Q-Score;”
“(d) outputting a buy, sell, or neutral trading decision based on said Q-Score.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the system to perform the method of claim 2” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity is described when calculating market metrics and trading based on said market metrics. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite no additional elements:
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The independent claim(s) recite no additional elements.
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The independent claims recite no elements which are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4-20 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 3 additionally recites execution of the method on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The computer components (non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 3:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the system to perform the method of claim 2.”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The independent claims recite no elements which are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (“Exploring Quantum Annealing for Enhanced International Financial Stock Portfolio Management” hereinafter Chou) in view of Feng et al. (CN 116630037 A hereinafter Feng; Examiner notes the page citations are those of the machine translation) further in view of Qureshi et al (“Pairs Trading Using a Novel Graphical Matching Approach” hereinafter Qureshi).
Claim 2
A method for generating trading signals via collapse dynamics, comprising the steps of:
(a) computing quantum-inspired indicators from market data; (Chou discloses quantum-inspired market indicator data. See at least section II.)
(b) applying a genetic algorithm to evolve indicator weightings; (Chou does not disclose applying a genetic algorithm to evolve indicator weights.)
(c) generating a composite Q-Score; and (Chou does not disclose generating a composite Q-score.)
(d) outputting a buy, sell, or neutral trading decision based on said Q-Score. (Chou discloses developing a trading portfolio based on said quantum inspired indicators. See at least Section II. Chou does not disclose trading based on Q-score.)
Chou does not disclose applying a genetic algorithm to evolve indicator weights. Feng teaches applying neural networks to solve quantum optimization (i.e. evolving weights). See at least the abstract.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the neural networks solving quantum optimization as taught by Feng for the algorithms of Chou because Feng additionally teaches the motivation that this realizes the predictability quantification evaluation of a stock market and improves the accuracy of stock predictability evaluation. See at least the abstract.
Also, applying the neural networks solving quantum optimization as taught by Feng for the algorithms of Chou is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Chou does not disclose generating a composite Q-score and trading based on said Q-score. Qureshi teaches constructing stock portfolios based on composite Q-scores. See at least section 4.2.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct portfolios based on composite Q-scores as taught by Qureshi for the system of Chou because Qureshi additionally teaches the motivation that this method is robust to outliers. See at least section 4.2.
Also, constructing portfolios based on composite Q-scores as taught by Qureshi for the system of Chou is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 3
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the system to perform the method of claim 2. (Chou discloses invention embodied on computers (i.e. non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by one or more processors). See at least sections I and II.)
Claim 9
The method of claim 2, wherein the indicators are normalized to z-scores within training windows to control for distributional drift. (Chou discloses t-test results based on specified windows. See at least Section V(E). Examiner notes the phrase “to control for distributional drift is an intended use of the normalization and as such may not be afforded patentable weight.)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (“Exploring Quantum Annealing for Enhanced International Financial Stock Portfolio Management” hereinafter Chou) in view of Feng et al. (CN 116630037 A hereinafter Feng; Examiner notes the page citations are those of the machine translation) further in view of Qureshi et al (“Pairs Trading Using a Novel Graphical Matching Approach” hereinafter Qureshi) further in view of Coleman et al. (WO 2024/134556 A1 hereinafter Coleman).
Claim 20
The computer-readable medium of claim 3, wherein explainability is provided by computing indicator importance scores for the quantum-inspired indicators to attribute contribution to each trading decision. (The combination of Chou/Feng/Qureshi does not disclose the features of Claim 20.)
The combination of Chou/Feng/Qureshi does not disclose the features of Claim 20. Coleman teaches assigning data assets with criticality scores (i.e. importance scores providing explainability). See at least paragraphs [0078]-[0079].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to assign criticality scores to the data assets of the combined system of Chou/Feng/Qureshi as taught by Coleman because Coleman additionally teaches the motivation that these indicate the assets’ importance with respect to each of the value drivers. See at least paragraphs [0078]-[0079].
Also, assigning criticality scores to the data assets of the combined system of Chou/Feng/Qureshi as taught by Coleman is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes a search was performed but did not result in an art rejection for Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (CN 118674555 A) discloses quantum calculation to solve portfolio optimization.
Inack et al. (EP 4,625,249 A1) discloses variational annealing to solve financial optimization.
Liu (CN 116205300 A) discloses a quantum Bayesian network for quantifying a transaction strategy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 at (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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights