DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 of September 12, 2024. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant argues “Applicant further submits that this constitutes a technical solution in the field of human-computer interaction: namely, how to configure a computer-based training interface so that novice users are taught long-term strategies without requiring financial sophistication. Therefore, as explained more fully below, the system as claimed sets forth a specific technological solution to a problem in user-computer communication and is therefore not an abstract idea”.
The claim describes the use of a display, speaker, and processor to present information in a specific, educational sequence. This sequence embodies the abstract concept of "teaching through simulation and feedback." The claim's elements, as recited, direct how the computer presents information to solve a human comprehension problem, not a problem with the computer's own operation.
3. Applicant argues “A similar point argued in the Office Action is that the idea that “the negative event causes the system to produce visual negative feedback such as a red warning display, a warning sound being audibly detected, or a warning message” is “using technology as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or linking the abstract idea to a particular environment.” However, Applicant submits that this idea actually comports with the point that the technical problem is a similar point argued in the Office Action is that the idea that “the negative event causes the system to produce visual negative feedback such as a red warning display, a warning sound being audibly detected, or a warning message” is “using technology as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or linking the abstract idea to a particular environment.” However, Applicant submits that this idea actually comports with the point that the technical problem is communicating the concept “do not panic during a short-term market downturn.” This constitutes a technical problem in human-computer interaction: there are any number of graphs, charts, sets of numbers in tables or the like that represent financial results, ranging from simplistic up and down arrows to the data-rich trading screens used by professionals that are nearly incomprehensible to a novice investor. The claimed invention addresses this problem by constraining inputs, requiring inclusion of a financial crisis, and providing multi-modal negative and positive feedback. The result is communication of complex financial behavior in a way that is both technically structured and accessible, without requiring a sophisticated understanding of compound interest or advanced financial theory. In the same manner, the language related to “a post-crisis display” that the Office Action finds to be “insignificant extra-solution activity” is instead part of the specific solution claimed”.
The solution described in the claim uses a computer to perform the steps of accepting simplified inputs, processing data to include a simulated crisis, and generating multi-sensory feedback. Under Alice, the inquiry is whether the computer components themselves are improved or whether they are employed in a manner that goes beyond their standard function to perform an abstract idea. The claim describes the use of a display, speaker, and processor to present information in a specific, educational sequence. This sequence embodies the abstract concept of "teaching through simulation and feedback." The claim's elements, as recited, direct how the computer presents information to solve a human comprehension problem, not a problem with the computer's own operation.
4. Applicant argues “As set forth in more detail below, Applicant submits that claim 1 recites “additional elements” that amount to “something more” and thereby render the claims patent eligible. These elements include how the system uses the display (and positive and negative reinforcement by visual and audible cues) to effect learning and teach the user concepts of long-term investing, and do not merely link the use of a judicial exception within a technological environment”.
The method of communication, using visual warnings, sounds, and messages to reinforce a lesson is a well-established pedagogical and user-interface technique. The claim applies this technique to the abstract idea of long-term investment strategy. The Alice framework requires an examination of whether the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Here, the feedback elements are part of the presentation of the abstract idea itself. They are the mechanism for delivering the lesson, which remains the underlying concept. The claim specifies the content of the communication ("do not panic") but does not recite a specific technological innovation in how the computer generates or manages that communication.
5. Applicant argues “As stated above, the claims as amended are not directed to financial forecasting or simulating investment, in the sense that the invention does not simulate the performance of a portfolio but instead provides and illustration of what happens to a specific amount invested over a specific time period, and the system interjects a financial crisis in the data to demonstrate that a sound long term investing strategy will overcome short term crises. Claim 1 “relates to an investment learning system to simulate financial performance of a hypothetical investment strategy, triggers a financial crisis within the simulation, and graphically displays the progress and final results of the simulation, by digitally presenting and displaying the simulated changes in value of a simulated investment account.”
Whether characterized as a "simulation" or an "illustration," the core of the claim is a process of modeling financial behavior over time to convey an economic principle. This is a fundamental economic concept. The inclusion of a crisis event is a specific data point within that model, used to reinforce the lesson. The distinction between simulating portfolio performance and illustrating a hypothetical investment strategy does not alter the abstract nature of the underlying concept being demonstrated, which is a method of teaching and a fundamental economic practice.
6. Applicant argues “Applicant submits that the claims are directed to a particular solution, not just a desired result. The claims recite a particular way of achieving a result, rather than simply stating the desired outcome or effect. The unconventional arrangement of components demonstrates the non-abstract nature of the invention by tying the claim to a tangible technological process rather than an idea. The invention does more than gather, analyze, and output data using a computer as a mere tool. For these reasons, Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and therefore recite eligible subject matter”.
The claim recites a sequence of steps: accepting inputs, processing data with a crisis event, and displaying results with feedback. The Alice decision requires that the "particular way" must amount to an inventive concept in the application of the abstract idea. The components cited, a user interface, a database, a processor, and modules for data entry and display link the use of the exception to a particular technological environment. The claim defines the educational purpose and content of the system but does not detail a specific, non-conventional technical architecture or data processing algorithm that would amount to an improvement in computer technology. The arrangement is directed to the flow of an educational lesson, not to a technological innovation.
7. Applicant argues “claim 1 does not attempt to restrict a broad swath of data processing but instead has clauses markedly more specific and detailed as compared to claim 1 of Bascom. In fact, the first half of pending claim 1 recites subject matter similar to Bascom, that is, reciting a system with a computer that processes data or selects information, and pending claim 1 then proceeds to set forth specific processing steps and specific results achieved from executing these steps to achieve a result.
The Federal Circuit has also determined that claims reciting a specific, ordered combination of rules can recite patent eligible subject matter. In Micro, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d at 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court found claims directed to a method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expressions in 3D characters to be patentable”.
The eligible claim in Bascom was found to recite a specific, technical implementation of a content-filtering abstract idea at the network architecture level. In contrast, the present claim describes the functional outcome of an educational process using generic computing components. It does not articulate a specific, technical implementation that modifies the system's architecture in a non-conventional way.
The court in McRO found the claims eligible because they used a specific, rules-based process that allowed a computer to perform a task (lip-syncing) that was previously done manually by humans, and the specific rules were crucial to the automation. The present claim does not recite a specific algorithm or rules-based process that enables a computer to perform a function it could not previously perform. Instead, it describes using a computer to automate a teaching method. The ineligible concept and its manual counterpart (a teacher using charts and graphs) remain the same.
8. Applicant argues “Applicant argues “1. Not Directed to an Abstract Idea: The claims are not directed to financial forecasting or generic data processing. Instead, they recite a structured training system configured to teach novice users long-term investing concepts through specific user interface modules, required financial crisis data, and sequenced feedback mechanisms.
2. Integration into a Practical Application: Even if considered to involve an abstract concept, the claims integrate that concept into a practical application by requiring:
o a single, constrained user interface;
o limited user inputs (no more than three values);
o mandatory inclusion of a financial crisis in the data set; and
o multi-modal negative and positive feedback coupled to the crisis event. These features go beyond generic “gather, analyze, and display” activity and constitute a specific technological solution to a problem in human-computer interaction.
3. Inventive Concept: The ordered combination of claim elements constitutes “significantly more” than an abstract idea. Like in Bascom, the inventive concept arises from the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known components. Like in McRO and DDR Holdings, the claims provide specific rules and structured steps that improve a computer-based process. As in Core Wireless, the claims recite a particular user interface design that improves usability and functionality”.
The claimed system’s purpose, as described by the Applicant, is “to teach novice users long-term investing concepts.” The mechanism for achieving this purpose is a simulation that processes financial data to demonstrate a principle. This is a method of organizing human activity specifically, an educational and financial concept. The Supreme Court has identified such methods as categories of abstract ideas. The claim’s character as a “structured training system” does not alter the nature of the underlying concept it is designed to implement. Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of teaching an investment strategy through simulated examples and feedback. The features cited by the Applicant, a single interface, limited data entry fields, a specific data set containing a crisis event, and outputting warnings and positive messages describe the content of the information processed and the form of its presentation. They define the parameters of the lesson being taught. The claim does not recite a specific improvement in the computer's functionality or a technical solution to a computing problem. Instead, it uses a computer as a tool to execute the steps of the pedagogical method. Using a computer to manage data input, storage, and output for an abstract concept, even with specified content rules, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that amounts to significantly more than the idea itself. In Bascom, the inventive concept was found in a specific, non-conventional installation of filtering software at a particular location within a network architecture. In McRO, the claims were deemed to recite a specific rules-based process that enabled a computer to automate a task it could not previously perform. The present claim does not recite a specific architectural arrangement or a particular rules-based algorithm that improves a technological process. It recites a sequence of steps for presenting an educational simulation. In DDR Holdings, the solution was necessarily rooted in computer technology to solve a problem arising in the realm of computer networks. In Core Wireless, the claims were directed to an improved display interface that addressed a specific problem with electronic devices. The problem solved by the present claim, how to teach a financial concept effectively does not arise uniquely in computing. The solution is the application of an abstract idea using standard computer components for their intended purposes of information presentation. The additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that amounts to significantly more than the idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of teaching investment principles without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a process which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “a … for teachings a user investment principles that determine the long term growth of a financial account, comprising::
a …; and a … connected to the … and having:
a … having a … for collecting, storing, and linking data associated with historical financial performance data; the historical financial performance data being annual market fund performance data values and including at least one financial crisis entry;
a … connected to the … and the …, and running a plurality of … whereupon the … instructs the … to display a progression of: account values, graphics, audible or text feedback representing the financial performance of a user account, wherein the plurality of … include:
a … connected to a … on the … that accepts no more than three input values comprising at least (1) an initial amount in the account, and a periodic contribution amount to invest in the account;
a … connected to a … on the … that accepts an input value of a time period; and
a … connected to the .., wherein the … of the progression of the account value during the time period indicative of the financial performance of the account with respect to the initial amount, the periodic contribution amount, and the length of time period, wherein the at least one financial crisis entry is characterized by a loss of value of at least 50% of the initial amount and produces a negative feedback of at least one of a warning display, a warning sound, and a warning message indicating the negative performance of the account, followed by a teaching display of a positive feedback indicating the positive performance of the account, whereby the user learns the consequences of value lost because of a financial crisis and the positive results of long-term investing strategies”. These limitations describe an abstract idea of teaching investment principles corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions including sales activities or business relations). Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
11. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites “a system, a single general user interface displayed on a user display screen, computer connected to the single general interface and having a computer readable storage device having a database, central processing unit connected to the single general user interface and the computer readable storage device, and running a plurality of core modules, user contribution selection module, time frame module, data display module” which do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
12. Further, as the additional elements of claim 1 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
13. Claim 2 recites “wherein the plurality of … further comprises a … for:
collecting data from the … of the initial amount value;
collecting data from the … of the periodic contribution value; and
collecting data from … of the length of time represented in the performance of the length of time; and aggregating the data and applying historical financial performance data to create a result” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “plurality of core modules further comprises a data aggregator module run by the central processing unit and configured, user contribution module, and time frame module” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
14. Claim 3 recites “wherein the plurality of core modules further comprises a graphical conversion module run by the central processing unit and providing a graphical form to for the graphical user interface display the progression, graphics, or text feedback representing the financial performance of the user account on the user display screen” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
15. Claim 4 recites “wherein the historical financial performance data includes the at least one financial crisis entry as an annual data value within the historical financial performance data” is a limitation which further defines the abstract idea.
16. Claim 5 recites “wherein the at least one financial crisis entry occurs within an initial period of the historical financial performance” is a limitation which further defines the abstract idea.
17. Claim 6 recites “wherein the initial period selected from at least one of an initial three simulated years of the historical financial performance” is a limitation which further defines the abstract idea.
18. Claim 8 recites “wherein at least a portion of the progression, …, … or text feedback representing the financial performance of the user account during the use of the … includes a positive feedback” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “graphics, audio, and system” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
19. Claim 9 recites “wherein the positive feedback includes at least one of …, a …, and a congratulatory message concerning the positive performance of the account” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “displaying green on the display, a celebratory sound being audibly detected” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
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 KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm EST.
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, Calvin Hewitt can be reached on 571-272-6709. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692