DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/22/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 09/22/2025.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended by Applicant.
Claims 2, 4 – 9, 11, 13 – 18, and 20 remain as original.
Claims 3 and 12 were cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 11, and 13 – 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Final rejection of 03/26/2025 as to claims 1, 2, 4, 5 - 11, and 13 – 20 are maintained in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments. New claims 21 and 22 are also subjected to a 35 USC 103 rejection (see below).
This action in Non-Final.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 103 rejection as to all claims in the last office action involved three citations: Zeitoun, Irlam, and Varma. Applicant argues herein that Varma does not adequately disclose “retirement age” nor “saving rate”. Remarks 12. Note that these last two claim phrases encompass the totality of the recent amendments to the claims (see claims of 09/22/2025), thus they have not been responded to yet by examiner. That said, examiner analyzes the above amended claim phrases with the still applicable primary, Zeitoun. See below 35 USC 103 analysis, where the primary, Zeitoun, sets forth:
(“The retirement calculation utility module asks basic questions about the investor's current savings, anticipated retirement age and desired annual retirement income.”, [083]) and (“The education calculation utility module utilizes a school cost annual increase rate; this rate may be input by the user in the Annual Increate Rate field 602. The Annual Increase Rate field 602 allows the user to enter an increase rate to be applied to the annual school cost as part of determining the goal value”, [090]), both a “retirement age” and a “savings rate” are set forth.
Applicant argues pursuant to 35 USC 103 that the prior Final rejection of 03/26/2025 also does not disclose how a “parallel architecture” can be used to simulate paths. Remarks 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously set forth, Varma in fact says:
(“According to one embodiment, the present invention employs a parallel processing architecture to speed generation of the resampled statistics. The parallel architecture is afforded by the nature of the resampling algorithm itself, which permits the financial data to be vectorized. This parallel processing architecture provides at least two significant advantages. First, the architecture permits the delivery and processing of financial data in compressed time frames, which facilitates “real time” or “near real time” statistical analysis. In addition, the parallel computation scheme provides the ability to perform statistical analysis on a large number of financial entities (e.g., a mutual fund or hedge fund) through a weighting process.”, [col. 2: 25 – 37]) and (“In addition, the RSAE provides for user control of a number of parameters to simulate various financial environmental conditions. For example, according to one embodiment, the RSAE allows a user to simulate either bull or bear market conditions by setting a bias parameter that controls a degree of randomness in the resampling process.”, [col. 2: 17 – 23]).
See below 35 USC 103 analysis.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 103 that the new claims 21 and 22 are not subject to a 35 USC 103 rejection. Remarks 13. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Those claims are both dependent on claim 1 (rejected, see below). Moreover, they both focus upon the word “sustainable”. That word however is not disclosed. Examiner thus interprets the new claim word “sustainable” broadly to include the analogous term “possible investment outcomes” (which term was disclosed, [002]). Namely, that this or that investment outcome is “sustainable” so long as it’s possible, …
In accordance with at least one embodiment of the invention, the Advisor may also be configured to project a range of possible investment returns and provide this information to the user in the form of a number of different reports.”, See Zeltoun at [010]).
Generally as to obviousness, examiner submits that it is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,147 (CCPA 1976). Using this standard, examiner submits that the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness was successfully established in the prior Office Action of 03/26/2025, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 09/22/2025, as seen below.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily altered or modified, and that there must be some reason why a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art would be motivated to make the proposed modifications. Although the motivation or suggestion to make modifications must be articulated, it is respectfully submitted that there is no requirement that the motivation to make modifications must be expressly articulated within the references themselves. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner also notes that the motivation to combine the applied references is, where appropriate in the below detailed analysis pursuant to 35 USC 103, additionally accompanied by select passages from the respective references which specifically support that particular motivation. It is also respectfully submitted that motivation based on the logic and scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, which evidence can also support a finding of obviousness, is otherwise provided in the detailed 35 USC 103 analysis of the claim set below. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 11, and 13 - 22 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zeitoun (US20050027632A1) in view of Irlam (US20160086277A1), and in further view of Varma (US6349291B1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19:
Zeitoun discloses:
receiving, by a computer system comprising a processing circuit and memory, investor information comprising an initial investment balance, an age of an investor, a current income, and a desired retirement age; (“In accordance with at least one embodiment of the invention, a computer-based system in which a user, e.g., a financial advisor, an investor, or a client of an investment firm, etc., may engage in an interactive dialog with a software-based investment advice system, hereafter referred to as the “Advisor””, [008]) and (“Based on information provided by the user, the Advisor may be configured to determine a recommended investment portfolio including investment allocations designed to meet at least one financial goal.”, [008]) and (“To calculate a blended rate of return for an asset or group of assets, the weight of each subclass in an assets allocation may be calculated by dividing the amount allocated to each subclass by the total asset balance.”, [0138]) and (“On the Quantify Goal screen 500, if the goal is for only one investor, the date of birth and current age may be pre-populated as well as the total retirement assets and the data in the assumptions section.”, [084]) and (“After a goal has been quantified, a user exciting the MNS icon provides, among other options, the option to create a risk and investment profile for the investor's goal. Selection of the Profile/Asset Allocation option triggers display … which includes a series of questions directed at gathering information about a client's risk tolerance, objectives (e.g., capital preservation, current income, partial appreciation, income and appreciation, etc.), investment time frame … risk return objective …”, [048]) and (“FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a Quantify Goal screen 500 displaying various fields associated with the retirement calculation module. … The retirement calculation utility module asks basic questions about the investor's current savings, anticipated retirement age and desired annual retirement income.”, [083]);
computing, by the computer system, a goal completion score for each of the simulation paths based on an associated present value of assets Examiner broadly interprets “goal completion score”, consistent with the light of the Specification [13], to include the meaning of a computed score related to some investment result (“Various questions may be included to enable a determination of risk, time horizon, current income, and total return scores. These scores may be used to determine a recommended asset allocation displayed within one of a number of broad portfolios along an efficient frontier and the breakout of the broad asset classes at the subclass and style levels.”, [0104]); and (“The Advisor system may also enable a user to generate recommended investment solutions through a model building feature. More specifically, a user can create an investment solution that may be saved as an investment model, draw from investment firm-wide models or maintain existing models. … The Investment Proposal screen functionality is only available for goals that have been profiled (that is, have a risk profile completed for the goal). and (“where pmt is the payment value, ir is the interest rate, np is the number payment periods, and pv is present value of the investment.”, [077] and see [080]);
generating, by the computer system, advice based on the goal completion score for each of the simulation paths; (“Various questions may be included to enable a determination of risk, time horizon, current income, and total return scores. These scores may be used to determine a recommended asset allocation displayed within one of a number of broad portfolios along an efficient frontier and the breakout of the broad asset classes at the subclass and style levels.”, [0104]);
comprising aggregating the goal completion scores computed by the multiple processing circuits simulating the investment portfolio over the plurality of simulation paths; Examiner interprets this claim language broadly to include the meaning that there is some aggregate / total score for the various investment portfolios, ... (“Various questions may be included to enable a determination of risk, time horizon, current income, and total return scores. These scores may be used to determine a recommended asset allocation displayed within one of a number of broad portfolios along an efficient frontier and the breakout of the broad asset classes at the subclass and style levels. The efficient frontier is one effective way to analyze the interaction of expected risk and return. The first step in constructing an efficient frontier is to plot every combination of assets (e.g., different asset allocation strategies) on a risk/return graph. Thus, the efficient frontier represents the line created by plotting and connecting all asset class combinations which produce the highest return for each degree of risk taken.”, [0104]);
displaying the advice in a user interface connected to the computer system. (“Thus, the risk and investment profile may be validated by displaying the responses on a Risk Profile Validation screen to determine accuracy relative to the goal objectives and investor risk and investment profile. An example of such a Risk Profile Validation screen 900 is illustrated in FIG. 9.”, [0108]);
the search space of parameters comprisinq a retirement age and a savings rate, (“The retirement calculation utility module asks basic questions about the investor's current savings, anticipated retirement age and desired annual retirement income.”, [083]) and (“The education calculation utility module utilizes a school cost annual increase rate; this rate may be input by the user in the Annual Increate Rate field 602. The Annual Increase Rate field 602 allows the user to enter an increase rate to be applied to the annual school cost as part of determining the goal value”, [090]), both a “retirement age” and a “savings rate” are set forth;
Zeitoun does not expressly disclose, but Irlam teaches:
simulating, by the computer system, an investment portfolio of the investor over a plurality of simulation paths, each of the simulation paths corresponding to a different stochastic simulation of the investment portfolio over a plurality of periods based on the econometric models configured with the investor information; (“inputting data representing returns of each asset class into the memory; performing one or more step(s) of stochastic dynamic programming (SDP) in the processor(s) using the data representing the returns of each asset class and values of a utility function U based on the consumption levels to compute values of aggregate utility of wealth,”, [004]) and (“FIG. 11 illustrates a Monte Carlo simulation of the portfolio size as a function of investor's age. The analysis here involves two distinct procedures. First, SDP is used to compute asset allocation/consumption maps as a function of age and portfolio size. An “asset allocation/consumption map” is derived using SDP by working backwards from the terminal age. The “map” displays the asset allocation and consumption amounts for each age and portfolio size. Second, Monte Carlo simulations are run to see how well a particular asset allocation/consumption map performs using returns sequences derived from the historical record. The Monte Carlo simulation rebalances annually to the target asset allocation, and withdrawals are taken at the start of the year. … All calculations and results are in real, inflation-adjusted terms. In an embodiment, the simulation starts at investor age B and follows randomly drawn paths 280, 283, and 286, which illustrate thousands of computed paths. The same code base is used for performing both simulation and SDP.”, [0109]), and see Abstract, published 03/24/2016;
any additional computer hardware in the independent claims is presented here. (“The invention relates in a feature to a method in a computer including processor(s) coupled to a memory, including the steps of:”, [004]) and (“A non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., storage device, CD, DVD, floppy disk, USB storage device) can be used to encode the software program instructions described in the methods below.”, [040]);
configuring, by the computer system, econometric models based on the investor information to compute a range of potential investment balances and a present value of decumulation, (note that claim elements investor needs, investor wants are mapped in citation below), and account balances; (“First, an income floor should be established using Single Premium Immediate Annuities (SPIAs), a TIPS bond ladder, or other low risk assets to cover non-discretionary expenses. Then riskier assets such as equities should be added to cover discretionary expenses. The adoption of the floor plus upside approach, in a sense, puts the solution before the problem. The problem should be how to maximize retirement well-being when consumption utility is split into separate floor and upside utility functions”, [003]) and (“Utility is a number that represents the value of consumption (i.e., spending) to an individual. … Thus, utility is usually not a linear function of consumption. The utility for one individual to consume another increment of money may be different than another individual.”, [043]) and (“FIG. 11 illustrates a Monte Carlo simulation of the portfolio size as a function of investor's age. The analysis here involves two distinct procedures. First, SDP is used to compute asset allocation/consumption maps as a function of age and portfolio size. An “asset allocation/consumption map” is derived using SDP by working backwards from the terminal age. … Second, Monte Carlo simulations are run to see how well a particular asset allocation/consumption map performs using returns sequences derived from the historical record.”, [109]) and (“and withdrawals are taken at the start of the year. … All calculations and results are in real, inflation-adjusted terms. In an embodiment, the simulation starts at investor age B and follows randomly drawn paths 280, 283, and 286, which illustrate thousands of computed paths.”, [0109]);
investor needs, investor wants (note that this limitation is repeated twice in each mirrored independent claim, in the same context) … (“FIG. 3A illustrates a two part utility function without a transition region. In an embodiment, the utility function is composed of two parts. Required spending forms the first part, and in an embodiment corresponds to non-discretionary spending (e.g., food, clothes, shelter). Extra spending forms the second part, and in an embodiment corresponds to discretionary spending (e.g., luxury goods and services, entertainment, vacations, charitable gifts).”, [050]), note that an investor’s “wants and needs” correspond to an investor’s discretionary and required spending, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zeitoun to incorporate the teachings of Irlam because Zeitoun would be more efficient and versatile if wants and needs were properly accounted for in the model (“FIG. 3A illustrates a two part utility function without a transition region. In an embodiment, the utility function is composed of two parts. Required spending forms the first part, and in an embodiment corresponds to non-discretionary spending (e.g., food, clothes, shelter). Extra spending forms the second part, and in an embodiment corresponds to discretionary spending (e.g., luxury goods and services, entertainment, vacations, charitable gifts)”, [050] of Irlam).
The combination of Zeitoun and Irlam does not expressly disclose, but Varma teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of simulation paths correspond to a different portion of a search space of parameters of the different stochastic simulation, each of the simulation paths being independent of one another, and wherein the plurality of simulation paths are distributed across multiple processing circuits executing in parallel; Examiner interprets this limitation broadly to include the meaning that different independent investment scenarios / paths may be processed together in parallel, ... (“A client may specify a number of parameters including an investment or investments (e.g., a portfolio) to be analyzed,”, [col. 2: 51 – 53]) and (“According to one embodiment, the present invention employs a parallel processing architecture to Speed generation of the resampled Statistics. The parallel architecture is afforded by the nature of the resampling algorithm itself, which permits the financial data to be vectorized. This parallel processing architecture provides at least two Significant advantages. [col. 2: 25 – 32])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zeitoun to incorporate the teachings of Varma because Zeitoun would be more efficient and versatile if is could additionally process various portfolios together so as to save computer processing time as done in Varma. (“First, the architecture permits the delivery and processing of financial data in compressed time frames, which facilitates “real time” or “near real time” Statistical analysis. In addition, the parallel computation Scheme provides the ability to perform Statistical analysis on a large number of financial entities (e.g., a mutual fund or hedge fund) through a weighting process.”, see Varma at [col. 2: 32 – 38]).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20:
The combination of Zeitoun, Irlam and Varma discloses the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively:
Zeitoun further teaches:
wherein the advice is generated by the computer system in near real-time in response to receiving the investor information. (“The value of the Estimated Future Value field 418 is based upon the goal's current asset allocation grown at its historical rate of return inclusive of the annual contributions (grown at an equivalent rate); the time constraint associated with this value is determined by the Years to Goal field 412. This future value represents the total assumed accumulated value of the listed accounts, assuming the specified estimated annualized return over the identified time horizon”, [065]), advice is generated in real time.
Regarding claims 4 and 13:
The combination of Zeitoun, Irlam and Varma discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively:
Zeitoun further teaches:
a first econometric model configured to perform stochastic estimation of the range of potential investment balances over a period; and (“Thus, the Advisor can enable financial goal setting, risk profiling, asset allocation development, investor proposal generation, and goal monitoring. As part of this suite of capabilities, the Advisor can enable multiple account groupings according to goals, include investor assets held away, goals-based calculators, portfolio level reporting, and portfolio modeling to include specific investment recommendations for investor consideration.”, [034]);
a second econometric model configured to compute the present value of decumulation wants, needs, and account balances over the period. Examiner interprets this claim to include the meaning that a plurality of models may be supported by the claims of the application, … (“The Advisor may be implemented as an integrated, workflow-based, software application suite based on a financial investment advisory process. The Advisor may also be implemented based on a modular and scaleable infrastructure that includes both asset allocation analysis utility modules and portfolio analytics utility modules. Using these utility modules, financial investment models or solutions may be formulated that may include equities, municipal bonds, mutual funds and managed accounts. Based on these models, a comprehensive investment portfolio proposal may be formulated for presentation to the investor or prospective investor.”, [035]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14:
The combination of Zeitoun, Irlam and Varma discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively:
Zeitoun further teaches:
computing an investor utility metric for each of the plurality of periods of a simulation path of the simulation paths, wherein the goal completion score associated with the simulation path of the simulation paths is computed based on the investor utility metric computed for corresponding ones of the plurality of periods of the simulation path, and Examiner broadly interprets “goal completion score”, consistent with the light of the Specification [13], to include the meaning of a computed score related to some completed investment result (“Various questions may be included to enable a determination of risk, time horizon, current income, and total return scores. These scores may be used to determine a recommended asset allocation displayed within one of a number of broad portfolios along an efficient frontier and the breakout of the broad asset classes at the subclass and style levels.”, [0104]); and (“The Advisor system may also enable a user to generate recommended investment solutions through a model building feature. More specifically, a user can create an investment solution that may be saved as an investment model, draw from investment firm-wide models or maintain existing models. … The Investment Proposal screen functionality is only available for goals that have been profiled (that is, have a risk profile completed for the goal). and (“where pmt is the payment value, ir is the interest rate, np is the number payment periods, and pv is present value of the investment.”, [077] and see [080, 0130, Fig. 11]);
Irlam further teaches:
wherein the investor utility metric is computed based on a non-linear utility function in accordance with the investor needs and the investor wants. (“Utility is a number that represents the value of consumption (i.e., spending) to an individual. For example, the utility of consuming $100K per year might be represented by 100,000 and $1M per year might be 400,000. Thus, utility is usually not a linear function of consumption. The utility for one individual to consume another increment of money may be different than another individual.”, [043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zeitoun to incorporate the teachings of Irlam because Zeitoun would be more efficient and versatile if wants and needs were properly accounted for in the model (“FIG. 3A illustrates a two part utility function without a transition region. In an embodiment, the utility function is composed of two parts. Required spending forms the first part, and in an embodiment corresponds to non-discretionary spending (e.g., food, clothes, shelter). Extra spending forms the second part, and in an embodiment corresponds to discretionary spending (e.g., luxury goods and services, entertainment, vacations, charitable gifts)”, [050] of Irlam).
Regarding claims 6 and 15:
The combination of Zeitoun, Irlam and Varma discloses the limitations of claims 5 and 14, respectively:
Zeitoun further teaches:
wherein the non-linear utility function assigns poor utility to adverse outcomes and reduced marginal utility to positive outcomes. (“Also, if a common stock, included in a recommended purchase, has been downgraded intra-day to reduce or sell, the Advisor may require that the user view the Recommended Purchases screen whereby the security may be deleted from the recommendation.”, [0167], thus, in the utility function, an adverse outcome may be treated poorly (i.e., deleted); moreover, examiner interprets “reduced marginal” outcomes which modify “positive” outcomes as above to include an investor goal, which goal may certainly be associated with a positive outcome, as claimed. (“A goal refers to a desired target accumulation of assets in connection with an investor's investment needs based on information a user has provided.”, [008]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16:
The combination of Zeitoun, Irlam and Varma discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively:
Zeitoun further teaches:
wherein simulating a period of the plurality of periods of a simulation path of the simulation paths comprises: applying starting balances, income, withdrawals, savings rates, and simulated asset allocation returns to stochastic simulation of asset returns and spending for the period; (See Fig. 11);
computing updated investor information for an end of the period; (“The Overview screen may displays icons, which provide links to related information regarding the Advisor including, for example, advisory capabilities such as tutorials, frequently asked questions, success stories, educational content, and news, products and sales ideas such as asset classification changes, financial planning news, and wealth management information, model portfolio updates including changes to equity, fixed income, municipal, and mutual fund model portfolios (e.g., portfolio composition changes, asset allocation recommendations, sector weighting changes, and general news and education for the models.”, [040]).
and computing a funded ratio for the investor for the period. (Fig. 10).
Regarding claims 8 and 17:
The combination of Zeitoun, Irlam and Varma discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively:
Irlam further teaches:
wherein the investor information further comprises at least one selected from a group comprising: health information regarding the investor; spending desires of the investor; a gender of the investor; and information regarding a spouse of the investor. Examiner interprets “spending desires” of investor to be equated to discretionary income (“FIG. 13 illustrates stock/bond allocation vs. portfolio size at a particular investor age.”, [0138]) and (“FIG. 3A illustrates a two part utility function without a transition region. In an embodiment, the utility function is composed of two parts. Required spending forms the first part, and in an embodiment corresponds to non-discretionary spending (e.g., food, clothes, shelter). Extra spending forms the second part, and in an embodiment corresponds to discretionary spending (e.g., luxury goods and services, entertainment, vacations, charitable gifts).”, [050]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Zeitoun to incorporate the teachings of Irlam because Zeitoun would be more efficient and versatile if wants and needs were properly accounted for in the model (“FIG. 3A illustrates a two part utility function without a transition region. In an embodiment, the utility function is composed of two parts. Required spending forms the first part, and in an embodiment corresponds to non-discretionary spending (e.g., food, clothes, shelter). Extra spending forms the second part, and in an embodiment corresponds to discretionary spending (e.g., luxury goods and services, entertainment, vacations, charitable gifts)”, [050] of Irlam).
Regarding claims 9 and 18:
The combination of Zeitoun, Irlam and Varma discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively:
Zeitoun further teaches:
receiving additional investor information; reconfiguring the econometric models based on the additional investor information; simulating the investment portfolio of the investor over a second plurality of simulation paths, each of the second plurality of simulation paths corresponding to different stochastic simulations of the investment portfolio over a plurality of periods based on the econometric models configured with the additional investor information; computing, by the computer system, a second goal completion score for each of the second plurality of simulation paths based on an associated present value of assets and the investor wants and needs; generating, by the computer system, updated advice based on the second goal completion score associated with each of the second plurality of simulation paths; and displaying the updated advice in the user interface connected to the computer system. Examiner interprets this claim to include the meaning that the exact same investment projections that were already addressed in detail above may be repeated more than one time, (“Possible goals may include, for example, building assets for future retirement, maintaining assets for current retirement, building assets for child's education, preserving wealth, assuring family income in the event of untimely occurrence, purchasing a new or second home, maintaining an emergency fund, passing wealth to children, generating a steady stream of income or managing stock option portfolios.”, [070]) and (“The Investor/Goal Manager screen enables a user to view data associated with an investor's goal(s), develop additional goals for a client, establish relationships between various accounts and other administrative functions. From the Investor/Goal Manager screen, the user can determine an investor's preferences, create additional goals,”, [056]) and see also MPEP 2144. VI, B.
Regarding (new) claim 21:
Please see above note (see remarks, for new claims 21 and 22) broadly interpreting the word “sustainable” as including in its meaning things that are “possible”.
The combination of Zeitoun, Irlam and Varma discloses the limitations of claim 1:
Zeitoun further teaches:
wherein the search space of parameters further comprises a sustainable spending goal. (“In accordance with at least one embodiment of the invention, the Advisor may also be configured to project a range of possible investment returns and provide this information to the user in the form of a number of different reports.”, See Zeltoun at [010]).
Regarding (new) claim 22:
The combination of Zeitoun, Irlam and Varma discloses the limitations of claim 21:
Zeitoun further teaches:
wherein the goal completion score for a simulation path is computed based on the sustainable spending goal and a result of the investment portfolio over the simulation path Examiner broadly interprets the quite general term “goal completion score”, consistent with the light of the specification [005], to include any score representing some simulated investment path, … (“Additionally, an income form preference scoring process may generate separate current income and total return scores. The investor's preference may be determined by whichever is the higher score. In the case of a tie, a total return preference may be assumed.”, [107]) and (“Every account in the Advisor must be assigned or related to a goal. … , goals may be associated with one or more investor accounts, but each account may only be assigned to one goal. … Possible goals may include, for example, building assets for future retirement, maintaining assets for current retirement, building assets for child's education, preserving wealth, assuring family income in the event of untimely occurrence, purchasing a new or second home, maintaining an emergency fund, passing wealth to children, generating a steady stream of income or managing stock option portfolios.”, [070]) and (“Thus, the Advisor can enable financial goal setting, risk profiling, asset allocation development, investor proposal generation, and goal monitoring. As part of this suite of capabilities, the Advisor can enable multiple account groupings according to goals, include investor assets held away, goals-based calculators, portfolio level reporting, and portfolio modeling to include specific investment recommendations for investor consideration.”, [034]).
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Greenstein (US20110087623A1) – Methods and systems are disclosed for providing income to persons generally after retirement by addressing the risk of living too long in a way that collectivizes the risk generally avoiding adverse selection and in some cases avoiding or minimizing the use of insurance products.
Eapen (US20040103052A1) - A system and method for valuing investment opportunities using real options, creating heuristics to approximately represent value, and maximizing a portfolio of investment opportunities within specified objectives and constraints. The system and method provides a problem solving environment for graphically representing complex valuation and decision problems, valuing them using real option analysis or discounted cash flow analysis, and creating heuristics between value and fundamental parameters. The system allows a user to graphically create a decision problem that allows combining options of both American and European types, fixed cash flows, and probabilities of technical success in whatever sequence is needed. The system also enables a user to describe parameters of the decision problem in names or in numbers in preformatted sheets or make connections to existing databases that hold the necessary information. Built in intelligence provides a user with on-demand tools to calculate valuation parameters.
Robinson (US20070250427A1) – A computer-implemented retirement planning system comprises data collection logic, modeling logic, and report generation logic. The data collection logic is configured to receive data pertaining to an individual planning for retirement. The retirement modeling logic is configured to process the data to generate parameters of a retirement plan. The retirement plan comprises a retirement income arrangement in which the amount of inflation-adjusted retirement income (from sources other than long term care insurance and health insurance) is larger during early years of the retirement plan and decreases as the maximum life expectancy of the individual is reached. The report generation logic is configured to generate a retirement plan report describing the retirement income arrangement.
Giovinazzo (US20070168302A1) - A method is provided for advisory assistance from an advisor to a fiduciary for qualified retirement plan selection and investment due diligence. The method includes evaluating products and services offered by a plurality of plan providers, reviewing reports provided by the advisor and selecting a plan. In one embodiment, the evaluation includes an analysis of components of each of the products by identifying the components of the plan and providing a measure of the plan provider's style box coverage and best asset class offering across multiple style box categories. The method includes generating a statement outlining a process for selecting, monitoring and evaluating investment options, determining a score for the plan providers' investments based on specific quantitative and qualitative factors, generating reports comparing the investment options within their corresponding products and vetting the selected investment options within a current plan.
Yadav (US20130018818A1) - Systems and methods for creating and managing investment portfolios are disclosed, These are useful to an individual investor, to investment advisors, as well as to professionally managed fund portfolios such as exchange traded funds, closed end funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, endowment funds, pension funds, wealth management funds, Other applications of taught methods and systems include product portfolio synthesis, process synthesis, and optimal internal allocation of capital in organizations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, 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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661