DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/5/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed 12/5/2025 have been entered.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
Claims 2, 14, and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 3-13 and 16-21 are previously presented.
Claims 2, 14, and 15 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues that the claim, as amended, recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea under Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework. More specifically, Applicant argues that the amended claims recite a particular and specific user interface including limitations drawn to “automatically display time period and payment information entries about one or more debt instruments of a debt instrument portfolio in a first column and a second column, respectively, at a first window of a graphical user interface"), and multiple independent pairs of graphical interactive slider objects that overlap these columns ("automatically display a first pair and a second pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects, each of the first pair and the second pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects overlapping the first column and the second column"). Applicant further argues that the interface has a functionality where a user can manipulate the sliders to select discontinuous time periods ("detecting user manipulation of one of the first and the second pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects, such that a first time period entry between the first pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects and a second time period entry between the second pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects are discontinuous with each other") that causes querying a debt instrument portfolio for the discontinuous time periods ("in response to detecting the user manipulation, automatically generate a query for the debt instrument portfolio that specifically targets only the debt instruments and payments corresponding to the discontinuous first time period and second time period selected by the first and second pairs of graphical interactive slider selection objects") and displaying the data for these discontinuous selections continuously in a second window ("responsive to detecting the user manipulation of one of the first and the second pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects, displaying the respective payment information entries of the first time period and the second time period, continuously, in a second window of the graphical user interface") (see Remarks, pp. 14-15).
The argument is not persuasive. With regards to Step 2A Prong Two, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, examiners should consider whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. This has also been referred to as a technological solution to a technological problem. In making this determination, examiners should determine whether there is a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the specification; and the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. Here, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement in technology. The selection of payments and payment dates using sliders as described in the specification at para. 0230 and Fig. 7 does not convey a technological improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. The display of such information in row format is generic computer implementation, e.g. several rows in a spreadsheet or table may be displayed in a similar fashion, where the row contains columns corresponding to dates and price information. These rows may be multiply-selected (including discontinuous rows) and the use of generic user interface sliders to select a range of rows is not indicative of a technical solution to a technical problem. Similarly, the limitations drawn to displaying a graph in a third window are also not indicative of a technical solution to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, the computer is merely being used as a tool to select input data and display data without conveying an improvement to graphical user interface technology itself. As such, the use of the graphical user elements to select and display information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 2-13 are directed to an apparatus (machine), claim 14 is directed to a method (process), and claims 15-21 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium (manufacture), and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent apparatus claim 2 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method claim 14 and independent product claim 15.
Claim 2 recites the limitations of:
2. (Currently Amended) An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor of at least one computer in electronic communication with at least one other computer via an electronic communications network; and
a memory that stores instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, directs the at least one processor to:
generate a user account comprising one or more debt instruments relating at least in part to real estate to determine a cash flow rating based on communication with an account module, wherein the user account comprises a financial account based on user's holdings derived from the user's order book;
automatically determine user preferences concerning one or more payments and/or debt instruments based on communication with a user preferences module, wherein the user preferences are automatically received from an automated user terminal;
determine a schedule of payments for one or more debt instruments based on communication using a schedule module with a database of an electronic exchange over the electronic communications network;
determine parameters for one or more debt instruments based on communication with a parameters module;
search one or more debt instruments based on the parameters based on communication with an instrument module;
allow for exchange of one or more debt instruments by operating a trading exchange based on communication with an exchange module;
automatically display time period and payment information entries about one or more debt instruments of a debt instrument portfolio in a first column and a second column, respectively, at a first window of a graphical user interface of a computing device of a user;
automatically display a first pair and a second pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects, each of the first pair and the second pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects overlapping the first column and the second column, and wherein each of the first pair and the second pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects is slidable to place respective first and second time period entries in the first column and respective payment information entries in the second column therebetween;
detect user manipulation of one of the first pair and the second pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects, such that a first time period entry between the first pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects and a second time period entry between the second pair of graphical interactive slider selection objects are discontinuous with each other;
in response to detecting the user manipulation, automatically generate a query for the debt instrument portfolio that specifically targets only the debt instruments and payments corresponding to the discontinuous first time period and second time period selected by the first and second pairs of graphical interactive slider selection objects;
responsive to detecting the user manipulation of the one of the first and the second pairs of the graphical interactive slider selection objects, display the respective payment information entries of the first time period and the second time period, continuously, in a second window of the graphical user interface, based on the generated query, and receive first electronic data comprising information about the selected payments of the debt instrument portfolio comprising one or more debt instruments, the information comprising, for each debt instrument, a price associated with a debt instrument in at least one database electronically coupled to the at least one processor;
determine, based on information stored in the at least one database, a current value for each of the one or more debt instruments;
determine, based on information stored in the at least one database, a payment schedule for the selected payments of each of the one or more debt instruments, each payment schedule comprising one or more payments, each payment schedule correlating a series of payment amounts with respective scheduled times of payment;
determine a probability of payment for the selected payments for each of the one or more debt instruments;
after determining a probability of payment for the one or more payments for each of the one or more debt instruments, determine a portfolio cash flow rating of the selected payments of the debt instrument portfolio based on:
(1) the current value of each of the one or more debt instruments associated with the selected payments; and
(2) the probability of payment for the selected payments of the one or more payments of each debt instrument; and
automatically cause information about the portfolio cash flow rating to be displayed in the second window of the graphical user interface of the computing device, and
in a third window of the graphical user interface, outputting a graph, the graph graphing the probability of the payment for each of the one or more payments of a selected one of the one or more debt instruments, with each of the one or more payments,
determining a rating for each of the one or more payments, based at least in part on the probability of the payment, and
displaying the rating for each of the one or more payments, with a respective identifier of the one or more payments with the graph.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they pertain to determining cash flow ratings. 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 recitation of at least one processor, a memory, electronic communication network, the computer modules, and graphical user interface elements 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. Claims 14 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 2 recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory, electronic communication network, the computer modules (“account module”, “preferences module”, “schedule module”, “parameters module”, “instrument module”, “exchange module”), and graphical user interface elements drawn to selecting and displaying information. Claims 14 and 15 recite similar additional elements.
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. MPEP 2106.05(f). With regards to using slider selection objects to select data, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement because the specification only describes general user interface mechanisms like sliding bars for selecting ranges of data. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). As such, these additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f).
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, claims 2, 14, and 15 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)
Step 2B
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 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 Applicant’s specification para. [0059-0061] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more.
Furthermore, as set forth above with regards to Step 2A Prong 2 , the use of the graphical user elements to select and display information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements also do not go beyond what is well-understood-routine, and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Furthermore, the use of mechanisms like sliding bars or range selectors have been commonly used in graphical interfaces for selecting ranges of data, such as in spreadsheets or list-based applications, as evidenced by:
Jaeger (US 2007/0083823 A1) [0018] … A user may lasso or otherwise circumscribe any two marker bars to cause the system to select all of the document that lies between the two markers. Thus, for example, the user may lasso two marker bars to select several pages of text, and then change the font size or style for that selected portion of the document. Likewise, in a spreadsheet display a user may employ lassoed marker bars to select rows and columns of the spreadsheet.
Victor (US 2012/0030566 A1) [Abstract]… movable markers may be placed in the list. The markers can be dragged to new locations to adjust how many of the data items are selected and highlighted in the list. Ranges of selected items may be merged by moving the markers to unify separate groups of selected items…
Selecting multiple discontinuous rows in Microsoft Excel:
PNG
media_image1.png
326
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 2, 14, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3-13 and 16-21 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 2 and 15 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 without significantly more.
Thus, claims 2-21 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Diego Arozamena (US 2007/0168270 A1) discloses a method for estimating future cash flows of an investment instrument (or portfolio of investment instruments) by simulating past performance (i.e., cash flows similar instruments based on actual data of past performance, using the simulated past performance to generate a distribution of possible future performance outcomes of the investment instrument, and using the distribution of possible future performance outcomes to make estimates of the expected cash flow from the investment instrument. In one embodiment, cash flow time series of private equity funds (J-curves) are simulated for fully-liquidated vintage years by scaling an aggregate net cash flow time series from a plurality of fully liquidated funds for that vintage year. The time series is scaled by scalar coefficients calculated based on statistics of the four parameters, internal rate of return, money multiple, depth of curve, and speed to depth, of the aggregated vintage fund J-curves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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 W Anderson can be reached at 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 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693