Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 1/23/2026. The status identifier for claim 38 is “currently amended”. However, no new limitations have been added nor any existing limitations removed. As such, the claim will be treated as previously presented.
Applicant has. Claims 1-11, 16-25, 36 have been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 12-15, 26-35 and 37-43 are pending for examination.
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 12-15, 26-35 and 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of “ranking investment portfolios as function of aggregate scores, modifying allocation of asset and revising listing of the ranked investment portfolios”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy” and “mathematical concepts”- model). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
Specifically, claim 12 recites “… receiving … a plurality of investment portfolios for a plurality of clients, each investment portfolio including a plurality of types of assets and at least one investment objective for the investment portfolio, wherein the investment objective identifies a goal percentage for each asset type in the investment portfolio”, “… for each investment portfolio, selecting for each asset at least one evaluation category, wherein teach of the evaluation category identifies criteria to be used to evaluate each asset”, “… for each investment portfolio, performing operations that establish a plurality of thresholds for each evaluation category”, “… for each investment portfolio, determining a market value for each of the assets in the investment portfolio”, “… for each investment portfolio determining an amount of deviation of each evaluation category from the established thresholds”, “… for each investment portfolio, performing operations that classify each evaluation category as a function of the determined amount of deviation of the evaluation category from the established thresholds”, “… for each investment portfolio, performing operations that assign a score for each of the classifications of the evaluation categories for the respective investment portfolio”, “… for each investment portfolio, determining an aggregate score using the assigned scores for all of the classifications of the evaluation categories for the respective investment portfolio”, “… performing operations that rank the plurality of investment portfolios as a function of the aggregate scores of the plurality of investment portfolios”, “displaying a listing of the ranked investment portfolios … wherein respective names of each of the ranked investment portfolios are displayed in a rank order in a first portion of the … and wherein a plurality of symbols indicative of the classification of each evaluation category for each of the ranked investment portfolios are displayed in a second portion of the ….”, “… receiving a selection of a displayed ranked investment portfolio”, “… receiving a selection of a displayed ranked investment portfolio”, “… for the selected displayed ranked investment portfolio, identifying at least one transaction to perform that changes the classification of at least one evaluation category by modifying an allocation of a respective asset in at least one respective investment portfolio, and displaying said identified at least one transaction on the ….”, “receiving a selected transaction from the at least one identified transaction to perform”, “… the selected transaction”, “… receiving… the plurality of investment portfolios including the at least one respective investment portfolio, the at least one respective investment portfolio including a revised allocation of the respective asset”, “…performing operations that rank the plurality of investment portfolios including that at least one respective investment portfolio, as a function of the aggregate scores of the plurality of investment portfolios”, “displaying a revised listing of the ranked investment portfolios … the revised listing unequal to the listing of the ranked investment portfolios”.
Accordingly, claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claim 12 such as “ electronically”, “at a computer processor”, “by the computer processor”, “on a display device” comprising a graphical user interface”, “ at the computer processor” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “executing… (the selected transaction)”, the claims lack detail regarding what “executing” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “executing” is performed nor describe how the functions are accomplished the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Depending claims 13-15 and 26-31 further recite “issuing an alert as a function of one of the aggregated scores of the plurality of investment portfolios (claim 13)”, “wherein the alert is based on an amount of time that a respective one of the plurality of investment portfolios exceeds a suggested guideline (claim 14)”, “wherein the alert is based on the occurrence of exceeding a threshold (claim 15), “receiving instructions…. the transaction (claim 16)”, “wherein the plurality of thresholds includes a concentration of an individual asset as compared to all asses held in the portfolio (claim 28)”, “wherein the industry sector includes at least one of communications, utilities, consumer staples, energy, health care, financial services, industrials, consumer discretionary and …. (claim 29)”, “wherein the step of performing operations that classify each evaluation category includes determining a difference between an actual concentration of an asset and suggested guideline (claim 30) and “wherein the step of performing operations that classify each evaluation category includes comparing the determined difference with the plurality of thresholds (claim 31)“ which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy”. (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 13-15 and 26-31, such as “via the graphical user interface (claim 26)”, “(the industry section includes) … technology (claim 29)” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “to execute… (the selected transaction)” (claim 26), the claims lack detail regarding what “executing” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claims 13-15 and 26-31 are not patent eligible.
Claim 32 is also directed to the abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy” and “mathematical concepts”- model). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
As in the case of claim 12, claim 32 includes additional elements such as “a display device comprising a graphical user interface”, “a memory for storing computer readable code”, “a processor operatively coupled to the memory”, “on the graphical interface” and “on the display”. Each, however, does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. With respect to “executing… (the selected transaction)”, the claims lack detail regarding what “executing” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 32 is not patent eligible.
Depending claims 33-35 and 37-42 further recite “issue an alert as a function of one of the aggregated scores of the plurality of investment portfolios (claim 33)”, “wherein the alert is based on an amount of time that a respective one of the plurality of investment portfolios exceeds a suggested guideline (claim 34)”, “wherein the alert is based on the occurrence of exceeding a threshold (claim 35), “receiving instructions…. the transaction (claim 37)”, “wherein the plurality of thresholds includes a concentration of an individual asset as compared to all asses held in the portfolio (claim 28)”, “wherein the industry sector includes at least one of communications, utilities, consumer staples, energy, health care, financial services, industrials, consumer discretionary and …. (claim 29)”, “wherein the step of performing operations that classify each evaluation category includes determining a difference between an actual concentration of an asset and suggested guideline (claim 30) and “wherein the step of performing operations that classify each evaluation category includes comparing the determined difference with the plurality of thresholds (claim 31)“ which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy”. (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 33-35 and 37-42, such as “processor is configured to… (claims 33, 41 and 42), “graphical user interface is configured to… (claim 37)”, “(the industry section includes) … technology (claim 40)” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “to execute… (the selected transaction)” (claim 37), the claims lack detail regarding what “executing” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claims 33-35 and 37-42 are not patent eligible.
Claim 43 is also directed to the abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy” and “mathematical concepts”- model). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
As in the case of claim 12, claim 43 includes additional elements such as “a computer-useable non-transitory medium having computer readable instructions, that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to…”, “on a display device comprising a graphical user interface”, “of the graphical user interface” and “on the display”. Each, however, does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. With respect to “execute… (the selected transaction)”, the claims lack detail regarding what “executing” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 43 is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-15, 26-35 and 37-43 have been searched and reviewed. No prior art has been found that discloses, either expressly or inherently, all of the limitations of the claimed invention. Even though Muralidhar (US 2003/0093352 A1) discloses receiving investment portfolios for clients, identifying percentage of asset type, selecting evaluation category and establishing thresholds for each evaluation category and determine market values, see at least paragraphs 0043, 0002, 0052, 0021, 0022, 0045 and 0032, the rest of limitations recited in claims 12, 32 and 43, considered as a whole including all limitations in the independent claims, is not taught by the prior arts found in examiner’s search. Therefore, no rejection under 102/103 is made.
Related But Not Relied Upon
Relevant art cited but not applied: Anderson (6,064,985), directed to automated portfolio management.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the claims are statutory under 35. U.S.C. 101 because 1) the claims are not directed to abstract idea 2) the claims apply structured computational logic and are “computer-implemented” 3) revised listing results in material transformation and not merely applying business concept 4) the claims set forth a particular technological solution that is more than well-understood, routine, or conventional activity 5) the Office has failed to provide sufficient evidence that the claims are more likely than not ineligible. The Examiner disagrees. The claims recite the abstract idea of “ranking investment portfolios as function of aggregate scores, modifying allocation of asset and revising listing of the ranked investment portfolios”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy” and “mathematical concepts”- model). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). The additional elements such as “electronically”, “at a computer processor”, “by the computer processor”, “on a display device” comprising a graphical user interface”, “ at the computer processor” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “executing… (the selected transaction)”, the claims lack detail regarding what “executing” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “executing” is performed nor describe how the functions are accomplished the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer "specialized," nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument the claims are not well-understood, routine or conventional, applicant is reminded that if an examiner had previously concluded under Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity they should reevaluate such conclusion in Step B (please see at least MPEP 2106.05 (g)) and if such reevaluation indicates that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that an inventive concept is present. In this case, since the examiner has not concluded under Step 2A that any element is “insignificant extra-solution activity”, no reevaluation of whether the elements are “routine and conventional” is needed. In response to applicant’s argument that the Office fails to provide evidence, it is noted that the Office has identified the abstract idea as “ranking investment portfolios as function of aggregate scores, modifying allocation of asset and revising listing of the ranked investment portfolios”, which fails within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy” and “mathematical concepts”- model). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). The rejection does not reply on an assertion that the additional elements are well-understand, routine, and convention and no further evidentiary support is required. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 pm.
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, RYAN DONLON can be reached at (571) 270-3602. 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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692