DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 April 2026 has been entered.
The following is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination filed 28 April 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 16, and 20 have been received and are acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per the Office action of 12/10/2024 referencing Applicant’s previous response generally referencing the Specification and exemplary drawings, Examiner will interpret the term ‘category’ by its plain meaning and related determinations of categories and corresponding labels as a user design choice as exemplified by Applicant’s response referencing the drawings. As noted and in view of the disclosure and Applicant’s response, none of these labels/categories are terms of art or specifically defined in the disclosure. All claim elements are interpreted using broadest reasonable interpretation.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues:
(1) That unlike Examiner’s characterization of the claims as reciting “ .. .selecting fund allocations for investment” the “ …independent claims recite a specific, unconventional database architecture… these structural and functional elements … goes far beyond – the mere concept of “selecting fund allocations for investment…the specific set of rules associated with the specific database architecture provide a technical improvement over existing techniques within the financial technology field for managed accounts… specific technical operation performed by a computer system on e a specific data structure, no an abstraction of human activity or economic practice. “ (Applicant’s response 11-12) (2) Further Applicant argues that the:
“……an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. The specific database architecture and set of rules provide a technical improvement within the historically-rigid operating framework of managed accounts via the automatic selection of a fallback fund category and/or a combination of fallback fund categories that perform most similarly to an unavailable fund category. The claims now specify that the fallback fund categories are ranked such that a highest-ranked fallback fund category most closely mimics performance of the target fund category, ensuring the system automatically selects the fallback that best preserves the investment strategy of the unavailable target fund category. This is not merely automating a pre-existing human process-it is a specific technical solution to a problem that arises uniquely in automated systems: the need to resolve, in real-time, the edge case of zero matching funds without human intervention and without delay…… when there were no funds within the shortened list that satisfied the rigid checklist for selection of funds, a managing party would use a Byzantine and labor-intensive sequence for investing that money in an alternative fund, which may delay the investment of funds by months. The claimed fallback database architecture eliminates this delay entirely by providing a pre-configured, hierarchically organized, machine-readable data structure that the application server can traverse automatically-in real-time-to resolve the zero-fund situation without any human involvement….This is analogous to the situation in Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the fallback database architecture-a hierarchically organized, machine-readable structure with ranked fallback levels, ranked by how closely each fallback mimics the target fund category's performance- similarly improves the functioning of the claimed application server by enabling it to automatically and efficiently resolve the zero-fund edge case in real-time, a situation it could not handle without the specialized database structure. Thus, the claims do not recite generic instructions to "apply it on a computer," but rather a specific technical operation performed using a specific, unconventional database structure
that improves the functioning of the claimed application server….” (Applicant’s response 12-13)
(3) Applicant then argues that the “ ….specific application server computer and a specific database server computer with a specific hierarchical fallback database architecture…with a specific relational schema between target fund categories, ranked fallback levels, substitute categories and allocation portions. This constitutes use of particular machine…” (Applicant’s response, 13). (4) Applicant also asserts that the invention does not “…use generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions…” because the claims recited “ particular implementation of a solution to a problem in the fintech field that enables the automated system to resolve fund allocation requests in real-time without resorting to manual intervention…” (Applicant’s response, 13-14) (5) Applicant lastly argues that there is “…no evidence that the specific fallback database architecture…is well- understood, routine, or conventional in the art…withdrawal of the § 103 rejection conclusively establishes that the ranked fallback database architecture is not found in the cited prior art…An element that the conceded to be absent from the prior art-and that no combination of prior art references teaches or suggests-cannot simultaneously be characterized as "well-understood, routine, and conventional."(Applicant’s response 14)
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted previously and in the rejection below. As noted previously, Examiner further notes that the disclosure including the specification do not disclose any specifics of the “database architecture” or “linking” or any mention of processor speed. Applicant’s arguments are unsupported and as such not persuasive. Applicant’s own specification states that the “…instant disclosure relates generally to investment accounts and, …to automated systems and methods for selecting fund allocations for investments…” (Specification [1]) and “ Disclosed are example automated systems and methods for selecting fund allocations for an investment account…” (Specification [10]). As noted previously, The instant claims are not analogous to the patent eligible claims of Enfish because unlike the patent eligible claims of Enfish, the instant claims are not an improvement to technology. As noted in the rejection previously and below, the recited invention merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f) ) The particular computing elements referenced in Applicant’s arguments are disclosed as: (Specification, [46] computer; [54] application server, processor…any suitable processing device…[55] non-transitory computer readable medium and computer readable medium…[57] the database service… is a SQL database server…and each of the fund database…is a SQL database…) Applicant’s own Specification is the evidence that the disclosed elements are generic computing elements recited at a high level. These are not improvements to technology – rather at most the invention recite an improvement to the abstract idea.
As noted previously, Applicant has again argued/implied that “common sense” would indicate that the “Byzantine sequences” are slower than the recited instant claims. A review of the specification notes that the term “Byzantine” is used twice in the specification; specifically:
[7] Oftentimes, upon identifying that there are no funds within the shortened list that satisfy the rigid checklist for selection of funds, a managing party may use a Byzantine and labor intensive sequence for investing that money in an alternative fund, which may delay the
investment of funds by months. Additionally, recordkeepers, for example, may frequently reclassify the categories for which some funds are designated. When this occurs, a fund previously selected for a particular category may no longer be designated for that category. In turn, the Byzantine and labor-intensive sequence for selecting an alternative fund may need to be used, thereby again delaying the investment of funds by months. (Specification, [7])
There is no definition of the term/phrase “Byzantine and labor-intensive sequence” as a term of art. As stated previously, this phrase is an adjective used to add a description to an opinion rather than a supported fact. It is noted that Applicant’s characterization (as supported by Applicant’s Response, footnote 3) of the process as ““Byzantine and labor-intensive sequence” inherently indicates that the problem being solved is a ‘pre-Internet’ problem which can be solved manually. A further review of the specification also discloses the terms ‘link’ and ‘programming’ are also recited once each (Specification, [50-51]). In other words, Applicant’s arguments for ‘improvement … to the way the processor handles the specific no-fund situation…” are a general assertion, not supported and unavailing. Further, as stated previously, improved speed or efficiency in processing an abstract idea does not recite patent eligible subject matter ( See 2106.05 (f) “…Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit)….”) Lastly, Applicant is conflating novelty with subject matter eligibility. A novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Per Applicant’s own arguments the recited invention “ … he need to resolve, in real-time, the edge case of zero matching funds without human intervention and without delay…… when there were no funds within the shortened list that satisfied the rigid checklist for selection of funds, a managing party would use a Byzantine and labor-intensive sequence for investing that money in an alternative fund, which may delay the investment of funds by months …” This is a financial problem which – per Applicant’s own arguments – uses technology. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)) (Applicant’s argument 1-4) Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Examiner withdrew the rejections in the office action of 1/29/2026.
.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method and the system for selecting fund allocations for an investment account. In the instant case, Claims 16-19 are directed to a process. Claims 1-15 are directed to a system. Claims 20 are directed to computer readable media.
(2a) Prong 1: Selecting fund allocations for investment is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
1. An … for selecting fund allocations for an investment account, the …comprising:
a …including:
an allocation …having one or more allocation tables, wherein each of the one or more allocation tables includes a plurality of cells, wherein each of the plurality of cells is linked to a target-allocation sub-table that associates target fund categories and respective target allocations, wherein each target fund category reflects a corresponding investment strategy;
a fallback … that associates the target fund categories with fallback fund categories, wherein each of the target fund categories is associated with one or more of the fallback fund categories,… , and wherein, each fallback fund category is defined by one or more substitute fund categories corresponding to target fund categories and associated portions of the target allocation, and wherein the fallback database further stores a rank order of fallback levels for each target fund category, wherein the fallback fund categories are ranked such that a highest-ranked fallback fund category most closely mimics performance of the target fund category including at least a primary fallback fund category and, for one or more target fund categories, a second fallback fund category, and
….configured to, in real-time upon a request for a participant:
collect an age of the participant;
determine a risk tolerance of the participant; and
retrieve a selected target-allocation sub-table from the allocation …based on, at least in part, the age and the risk tolerance of the participant; and
an … including:
… configured to …an available-funds table that includes an identifier code, a fund category, and a fund score for each available fund; and
one or more …, … is configured to,
for each of the target fund categories in the selected target-allocation sub-table and in real-time upon the request for the participant:
determine a number of matching funds within the available-funds table that correspond with the target fund category;
in response to the number of matching funds being one, assign a target allocation for the target fund category to a sole matching fund;
in response to the number of matching funds being two or more, select a selected matching fund based on a comparison of the fund score of each matching fund and assign the target allocation to the selected matching fund;
in response to the number of matching funds being zero, sequentially evaluate the fallback fund categories according to the rank order of fallback levels stored in the fallback database, starting with the primary fallback fund category, and select as the fallback fund category the lowest-ranked fallback fund category for which the available-funds table includes an available fund for each of the substitute fund categories for the selected fallback fund category …. and assign the target allocation among the one or more substitute fund categories according to the associated portions …;
after processing the target fund categories, in response to determining that an available fund is selected for two or more of the target fund categories, add the corresponding allocation amounts together when generating an allocation list;
generate and… the allocation list, wherein the allocation list identifies an allocation amount assigned to each available fund selected for fund allocation.
16. An automated method for selecting fund allocations for an investment account, the automated method comprising:
providing a …with a… comprising:
an allocation …having one or more allocation tables, wherein each of the one or more allocation tables includes a plurality of cells, wherein each of the plurality of cells
the target-allocation sub-table; and
a fallback … that associates the target fund categories with fallback fund categories, stores a rank order of fallback levels for each target fund category, wherein the fallback fund categories are ranked such that a highest-ranked fallback fund category most closely mimics performance of the target fund category, including at least a primary fallback fund category and, for one or more target fund categories, a secondary fallback fund category ;
collecting,…., an age of a participant in real-time upon a request for the participant;
determining,…, a risk tolerance of the participant in real-time upon the request for the participant;
retrieving, in real-time upon the request for the participant, a selected target-allocation sub-table from the allocation … based on, at least in part, the age and the risk tolerance of the participant;
……, an available-funds table that includes an identifier code, a fund category, and a fund score for each available fund;
for each of the target fund categories in the selected target-allocation sub-table and in real-time upon the request for the participant:
determining,…, a number of matching funds within the available-funds table that correspond with the target fund category;
in response to the number of matching funds being one, assigning a target allocation for the target fund category to a sole matching fund;
in response to the number of matching funds being two or more, selecting a selected matching fund based on a comparison of the fund score of each matching fund and assigning the target allocation to the selected matching fund; and
in response to the number of matching funds being zero, sequentially evaluate the fallback fund categories according to the rank order of fallback levels stored in the fallback database, starting with the primary fallback fund category, and selecting as a selected fallback fund category the lowest-ranked fallback fund category for which the available-funds table includes an available fund for each of the substitute fund categories that for the selected fallback fund category, and assigning the target allocation among the one or more substitute fund categories
after processing the target fund categories, in response to determining that an available fund is selected for two or more of the target fund categories, combining the corresponding allocation amounts together when generating an allocation list;
generating and…, …, the allocation list wherein the allocation list identifies an allocation amount assigned to each available fund selected for fund allocation.
20. … to collectively:
provide a … with … comprising:
an allocation … having one or more allocation tables, wherein each of the one or more allocation tables includes a plurality of cells, wherein each of the plurality of cells is linked to a target-allocation sub-table that associates target fund categories and respective target allocations, wherein each target fund category reflects a corresponding investment strategy;;
the target-allocation sub-table; and
a fallback … that associates the target fund categories with fallback fund categories, wherein each of the target fund categories is associated with one or more of the fallback fund categories, wherein each fallback fund category is defined by one or more substitute fund categories corresponding to target fund categories and associated portions of the target allocation, and wherein the fallback database stores a rank order of fallback levels for each target fund category, wherein the fallback fund categories are ranked such that a highest-ranked fallback fund category most closely mimics performance of the target fund category including at least a primary fallback fund category and, for one or more target fund categories, a secondary fallback fund category;
collect an age of a participant in real-time upon a request for the participant;
determine a risk tolerance of the participant in real-time upon the request for the participant;
retrieve, in real-time upon the request for the participant, a selected target-allocation sub-table from the allocation database based on, at least in part, the age and the risk tolerance of the participant;
… an available-funds table that includes an identifier code, a fund category, and a fund score for each available fund;
for each of the target fund categories in the selected target-allocation sub-table and in real-time upon the request for the participant:
determine a number of matching funds within the available-funds table that correspond with the target fund category;
in response to the number of matching funds being one, assign a target allocation for the target fund category to a sole matching fund;
in response to the number of matching funds being two or more, select a selected matching fund based on a comparison of the fund score of each matching fund and assign the target allocation to the selected matching fund; and
in response to the number of matching funds being zero, sequentially evaluate the fallback fund categories according to the rank order of fallback levels stored in the fallback database, starting with the primary fallback fund category, and select as a selected fallback fund category the lowest-ranked fallback fund category for which the available-funds table includes an available fund for each of the substitute fund categories that form associated with the selected fallback fund category and assign the target allocation among the substitute fund categories according to the associated portions …; and
after processing the target fund categories, in response to determining that an available fund is selected for two or more of the target fund categories, combine the corresponding allocation amounts together when generated an allocation list;
generate and … an the allocation list, wherein the allocation list identifies an allocation amount assigned to each available fund selected for fund allocation.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity.
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of providing…, collecting… determining…retrieving…determining…assigning…selecting…assigning… evaluating…selecting… assigning… combining …generating… ….do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. storing…transmitting…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 16-19 are directed to a process. Claims 1-15 are directed to a system. Claims 20 are directed to computer readable media.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (system, application, processors, database, database server ) merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f) ) (Specification, [46] computer; [54] application server, processor…any suitable processing device…[55] non-transitory computer readable medium and computer readable medium…[57] the database service… is a SQL database server…and each of the fund database…is a SQL database…)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-15 and 17-19) introduce the additional elements of wherein clauses further defining allocation tables (Claim 2 …) collect…, select… retrieve… (Claim 3…) collect…(claim 4)…database server…(Claim 5) …identify…add…(Claim 6…) compare…compare…(Claim 7…) fund database (Claim 8…) …to select… (claim 9) … compare…(Claim 10)…randomly select…(Claim 11..) ..wherein the fallback database includes…(Claim 12…) …wherein one or more of the fallback fund categories include..…(Claims 13 and 18)..select…. determine… select… (Claims 14 and 19)… add … allocation… (Claim 15)… selecting… comparing… randomly selecting… (Claim 17) These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because the elements amount to mere use of a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) and (f) ) (Specification, [46] computer; [54] application server, processor…any suitable processing device…[55] non-transitory computer readable medium and computer readable medium)
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
EXAMINER NOTE: Regarding Claim 20 recites “computer readable media.” Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification [55] expressly excludes propagating signals.
Prior Art
The closest prior art of record of: US 8,429,051 Bl, Samson hereinafter referred to as Samson generally discloses a system and method for investment guidance which enables individuals to rate and select assets based on personal investment preferences including various features such as target asset allocation and filtering of funds based on preferences and US 2016/0171608 Al, Milner et al. hereinafter referred to as Milner generally discloses a method and system of finding similar funds.
Even though the prior art of record discloses the general concepts cited above, the prior art of record fails to teach a fallback fund category with a designated ranked primary and secondary fallback fund category. The specific claim language that the prior art of record fails to teach is:
-fallback fund category is defined by one or more substitute fund categories corresponding to target fund categories and associated portions of the target allocation, and wherein the fallback database further stores a rank order of fallback levels for each target fund category, including at least a primary fallback fund category and, for one or more target fund categories, a second fallback fund category
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160171608 A1- Methods and systems for finding similar funds—([40] ranking as a measure of similarity of investment philosophy)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights