DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on September 18, 2025. Claims 1- 4 are pending and have been examined. The Objections to the drawings, objections to the Specification (abstract), claim interpretation, rejections and allowable subject matter (over prior art), are stated below.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed by the applicants on September 18, 2025 are objected to by the Examiner. Specifically, drawings of Figure 4 are not clear. Formal replacement legible drawings are required in the response to this Office action. Note: Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Specification
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
4. Claims 1-4 are interpreted as follows because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A data quantization method based on definite values and estimated values, the method comprising the steps of:
collecting, by a data quantization apparatus from at least two information manager-side apparatuses, data corresponding to a definite value of each preset period of a preset previous section based on a current date, an estimated value and a definite value of a current year based on the current date, and an estimated value of each period of a preset subsequent section based on the current date;
collecting a provision value that can be compared with the estimated values and the definite values, and calculating at least one comparison reference value on the basis of the provision value; and
quantizing the data of each period and section in a method of assigning a weight to the current year of each period and to each period of the previous section and subsequent section, by comparing the definite value of each period of the previous section, the definite value of each period of the current year, and the estimated value of each period of the subsequent section with the comparison reference value, wherein
the quantizing step includes the steps of:
calculating an average value for each period or each section using the definite value of each period of the previous section, the definite value of each period of the current year, and the estimated value of each period of the subsequent section;
calculating a score for each period of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section, by assigning a negative weight when the calculated average value is greater than the definite value or the estimated value of each period, and assigning a positive weight when the calculated average value is smaller than or equal to the definite value or the estimated value of each period;
calculating a total score of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section based on the score of each period of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section; and
generating a quantized graph using the total score and the score of each period of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section, and
the collected data are estimated and definite values of performance, and the provision value for comparison is net income and operating income, and an association data is an index-related graph” (emphases added). It is not clear if the emphasized steps of the claim are performed manually or by the data quantization apparatus. These emphasized steps are broadly interpreted to be performed manually also. Similar interpretation applies to the dependent claims 2-4 also. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a data quantization method based on definite values and estimated values, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of Certain of methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices and also commercial and/or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a process.
The limitations of “A data quantization method based on definite values and estimated values, the method comprising the steps of: collecting, by a data quantization apparatus from at least two information manager-side apparatuses, data corresponding to a definite value of each preset period of a preset previous section based on a current date, an estimated value and a definite value of a current year based on the current date, and an estimated value of each period of a preset subsequent section based on the current date; collecting a provision value that can be compared with the estimated values and the definite values, and calculating at least one comparison reference value on the basis of the provision value; and quantizing the data of each period and section in a method of assigning a weight to the current year of each period and to each period of the previous section and subsequent section, by comparing the definite value of each period of the previous section, the definite value of each period of the current year, and the estimated value of each period of the subsequent section with the comparison reference value, wherein the quantizing step includes the steps of:
calculating an average value for each period or each section using the definite value of each period of the previous section, the definite value of each period of the current year, and the estimated value of each period of the subsequent section; calculating a score for each period of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section, by assigning a negative weight when the calculated average value is greater than the definite value or the estimated value of each period, and assigning a positive weight when the calculated average value is smaller than or equal to the definite value or the estimated value of each period; calculating a total score of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section based on the score of each period of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section; and generating a quantized graph using the total score and the score of each period of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section, and the collected data are estimated and definite values of performance, and the provision value for comparison is net income and operating income, and an association data is an index-related graph” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of Certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices and also commercial and/or legal interactions including agreements (between parties for whom the data quantization method is performed). Calculating values and scores based on criteria is a fundamental economic practice. Estimating collected data and definite values of performance and generating a quantized graph includes commercial and/or legal interactions including agreements (between parties for whom the data quantization method is performed). Hence, the steps of the claim considered collectively as an ordered combination, without the italicized portions, falls under the abstract category of Certain methods of organizing human activity.
That is, other than a data quantization apparatus and at least two information manager-side apparatuses, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a data quantization apparatus and at least two information manager-side apparatuses to perform all the steps. The data quantization apparatus and at least two information manager-side apparatuses are broadly interpreted to comprise general purpose computers suitably programmed to perform the underlying functions. A plain reading of Figures 1-2 and associated descriptions in paragraphs 60-66 reveals that apparatuses may be general-purpose computers suitably programmed to perform the claimed steps. The information manager-side apparatuses are broadly interpreted to perform the generic functions of receiving and sending information. The data quantization apparatus is broadly interpreted to perform the claimed limitations. The apparatuses in all the steps are (implicitly) recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computing devices performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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, using the additional elements (identified in the claim) to perform the claimed steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2 - 4, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
In claims 2 and 3, the limitations in the claims “further comprising the steps of: receiving association data related to the data from the outside; and generating a comparative graph including a graph corresponding to the association data in a quantized graph”, and “wherein the step of generating the comparison reference value includes the step of collecting the provision value through analysis of the data provided by a medium that posts data related to the provision value on the Internet, and then generating the comparison reference value on the basis of the collected provision value”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of certain methods of organizing human activity because these limitations further describe the intermediate steps of the process.
In claim 4, the limitations in the claim “wherein the assigning of the weighted values is performed using an artificial intelligence engine selected from the group consisting of regression models with adaptive weighting, neural networks with backpropagation error correction, and ensemble learning methods”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of certain methods of organizing human activity because these limitations further describe the intermediate steps of the process. The additional element of an artificial intelligence engine selected from the group consisting of regression models with adaptive weighting, neural networks with backpropagation error correction, and ensemble learning methods, is broadly interpreted to include generic software suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. These additional elements perform their traditional functions recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1- 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
For claim 1, the closest prior art of record (Oh et al. US Pub. 2014/0012800 A1 and Tidd; Nathan US Pub. 2015/0235319 A1) considered individually and collectively, fail to teach the steps of: “calculating an average value for each period or each section using the definite value of each period of the previous section, the definite value of each period of the current year, and the estimated value of each period of the subsequent section; calculating a score for each period of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section, by assigning a negative weight when the calculated average value is greater than the definite value or the estimated value of each period, and assigning a positive weight when the calculated average value is smaller than or equal to the definite value or the estimated value of each period; calculating a total score of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section based on the score of each period of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section; and generating a quantized graph using the total score and the score of each period of the previous section, the current year, and the subsequent section, and the collected data are estimated and definite values of performance, and the provision value for comparison is net income and operating income, and an association data is an index-related graph”. For these reasons, claim 1 is deemed allowable over prior art. Dependent claims 2 - 4 are deemed allowable, over prior art, by virtue of dependency on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
(a) Fickes, Steven (US Pub. 2005/0262014 A1) discloses a system and method for defining the value of a corporation by its categories of values, and determining the risk profile of the corporation by the relationship between the categories of value, termed the "Risk Signatures." The system provides for the determination of the "Relative Values" of corporate enterprises, with the capability of dynamically monitoring and measuring the financial performance of an enterprise through the use of artificial intelligence and data mining techniques.
(b) Calderaro, Michael Joseph et al. (US Pub. 2003/0130922 A1) discloses a system and method that estimates the financial impact in terms of savings and costs of performing a resource reduction addresses. Financial impact estimates are determined before the surplus action is initiated in order to estimate the savings of a planned surplus action and in order to estimate the costs of paying severance payments to employees. When estimating compensation savings and severance costs, the percentage of surplus employees in various skill groups are multiplied by average employment data to estimate the total savings amount and total severance costs. Management evaluates the employees in the affected skill group areas to determine which individual employees are surplus employees and should be removed. Actual financial impact data is calculated after the surplus employees have been identified. Employment data records corresponding to the surplus employees are used to calculate the total compensation savings and the total severance cost.
9. 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 .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. 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 number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights