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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of March 19 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 21 and 23-35 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection is proper under the two-step framework set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of financial simulation and historical performance analysis. Independent claim 21 and claim 35 recite a process of collecting user inputs describing an investment plan (time period, initial amount, recurring amount), providing the user with a list of historical events from the selected time period, and simulating financial results based on that data. This concept of modeling investment outcomes based on past performance and user defined variables is a fundamental economic practice. The concept of showing a user what would have happened to an investment over a chosen historical period is an abstract data analysis and comparison technique. The addition of selecting a specific historical event does not change this conclusion; it merely adds another data variable to the abstract analysis. The claims are directed to the concept of performing financial simulations, not to a specific technological improvement for doing so.
The elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not supply an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claims recite computer components performing their basic functions: a processor that executes instructions, a memory that stores data, and a general user interface that displays information and accepts input. The functionality of "simulating, by the processor, financial results based on the historical data, the historical events, and the user input" describes the processor performing a mathematical calculation using stored data. The display of these results on a user interface is the expected output of such a calculation.
While Applicant argues that limiting the user to three inputs is a specific solution, this limitation represents a choice regarding the quantity of input parameters. This choice does not impart an inventive concept because it is not an improvement to the functioning of the computer. It is an administrative simplification of the underlying abstract idea. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field. The problem being solved (helping users understand investment concepts) is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. The claims do not set forth a specific technique or method for performing the simulation that improves how a computer operates. Instead, the computer is used as a tool to perform the abstract process more efficiently.
The claims here are distinguishable from those in McRO and Bascom. In McRO, the claimed rules were specific to a technological process (3D animation) and improved that technological process by producing realistic and accurate lip synchronization automatically. The claims did not simply recite the abstract idea of animating lip movements; they recited a specific set of rules that achieved a technological improvement. Here, there is no improvement to the technological process of financial simulation; the claims simply recite the concept of performing a simulation. In Bascom, the inventive concept was found in the specific, non-conventional arrangement of components (a remote filter and a local ISP filter) to solve a technological problem (internet filtering at the ISP level). The ordered combination of components provided a solution that was not previously available. Here, the ordered combination of a computing device with input fields, a memory with historical data, and a processor simulating results does not provide a solution to a technological problem. The components interact in a manner consistent with their intended purposes to achieve the result of displaying a simulation. For at least these reasons, claims 21 and 23-35 are directed to an abstract idea and lack significantly more. The rejection is maintained.
.
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 21 and 23-35 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 21 is directed to a method which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 21 recites “a method for teaching a user economic literacy and investment skills by visually demonstrating past investment performance and the effect of past events on investments, comprising:
providing a …, the … stores historical data and historical events;
collecting, by the …, a user input on a plurality of data input fields of the .., one data input field receives time period data including a start date and an end date, another data input field receives an initial investment amount made on the start date, and a further data input field receives a yearly investment amount made each year from the start date to the end date;
displaying notes comprising a summary of the historical events that occurred between the start date and the end date, the historical events include a plurality of events that influenced the United States or the world economy particularly information on recessions, where the user is required to select at least one event in another further data input field;
calculating financial results based on the historical data, the historical events, and the user input on the plurality of …; and
displaying a visual representation the … financial results on the … to illustrate the value of long term investing”. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe an abstract idea of simulating investment products and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic practice such as mitigating risk).
The claim also recites as additional elements such as “personal computing device having a processor, a memory, and a general user interface, simulated ”which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 21 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 21 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 21 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 35 also recite the abstract idea of idea of processing transactions and corresponds to Certain Methods of simulating investment products and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic practice such as mitigating risk) step one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 35 includes the additional elements of “a personal computing device having a processor, a memory, and a general user interface, simulated”. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements 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.
Claim 23 recites “updating the further data input field by manual input or…” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “by tapping a button on the general user interface has a button” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 24 recites “further comprising displaying year based information on the ,,, based on the start date and the end date, the …stores the year based information including categorical data” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “general user interface” and “memory”, as an additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements 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.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the …, when the… the displayed year based information is changed” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “general user interface has a button” and “when the button is activated”, as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements 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.
Claim 26 recites “further comprising displaying what if information on the …, the what if information is generated by the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “general user interface” and “processor”, as an additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional elements 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.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the plurality of data input fields are limited to the one data input field, the another data input field, the further data input field, and the another further data input field” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 28 recites “wherein the time period data for the what if information is a first day of work date for the start date and a last day of work date for the end date” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 29 recites “wherein the displaying step includes generating a visual demonstration based on the simulated financial results, the generated visual demonstration is displayed on the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “general user interface”, as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 30 recites “herein the historical data includes data concerning political leadership according to the financial results and the selected time period data and provides the user with an understanding of social, economic, political, consumer related and other events that may impact, directly or indirectly financial results during the time period data” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 31 recites “wherein the historical data includes data concerning employment, price-to-earnings ratio, or gross domestic product according to the financial results during the time period data” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 32 recites “wherein the visual demonstration includes a visual of a long-term investing versus adverse short-term conditions visual by illustrating on the … a distinct dichotomy between ups and downs that occur frequently over the course of a long term investment term” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “general user interface”, as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 33 recites “wherein the visual demonstration includes a visual of a long-term investing versus adverse short-term conditions visual by illustrating on the general user interface a distinct dichotomy between ups and downs that occur frequently over the course of a long term investment term” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 34 recites “wherein the visual demonstration includes maximum and minimum yearly returns, down years, up years, initial contribution return, and an annual contribution return that are each displayed on the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “general user interface”, as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21, 23-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 21, the claim is rejected because the claim appears to contradict itself. To explain, the claim states “collecting … no more than three user inputs on a plurality of data input fields of the general user interface” then the claim recites 5 inputs:
“a start date”
“an end date”
“an initial investment amount”
“a yearly investment amount”
“at least one event in another further data input field”
Because the claim appears to limit the input to three (3) inputs, but requires five (5), the claim is unclear. For the purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted as requiring “no more than five inputs”.
Claim 35 is rejected under the same rationale. Dependent claims 23-34 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2011/0153520 teaches the use of a database of historical domestic and international events for simulated trading, with user selection of time periods and investment amounts. US Pub No. 2020/0286403 teaches a system for investment training via simulation, limited to user inputs of time period and investment amount, and uses historical data. US Pub No. 2009/0215537 teaches effects of investments over an extended period in an economic environment using actual historical economic data. The specific combination of features in the amended claim, specifically, the combination of collecting, by the personal computing device, no more than three user inputs on a plurality of data input fields of the general user interface, one data input field receives time period data including a start date and an end date, another data input field receives an initial investment amount made on the start date, and a further data input field receives a yearly investment amount made each year from the start date to the end date; displaying notes comprising a summary of the historical events that occurred between the start date and the end date, the historical events include a plurality of events that influenced the United States or the world economy particularly information on recessions, wherein the user is required to select at least one event in another further data input field;, calculating financial results based on the historical data, the historical events, and the user input on the plurality of data input fields
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 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 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/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights