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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received October 27, 2025. Claims 6 and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
As to the rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the present claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Examiner disagrees. The claims in the instant application include an abstract idea, and when considered as a whole, the claims (independent and dependent) do not integrate the exception into a practical application, and merely add the words “apply it” to the “the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. GPUs and GUIs). And simply relying on a computer to perform routine tasks or calculations more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”); cf. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding a computer-implemented method patent eligible where the claims recite a specific manipulation of a general-purpose computer such that the claims do not rely on a “computer network operating in its normal, expected manner”). As elaborated in the rejection below, using a processing unit is simply “apply it” using generic computer components rather than integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments that a technical improvement has been made as “the GPU is ‘better configured to handle performance operations on vector arrays’ which are included in the process of generating the predicted output for the user based on the user profile data” does not go beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. GPUs and GUIs) or insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP 2106.06(g) (data gathering and then outputting the results of analyzing the collected data in a display of an alert). The rejection is thereby maintained.
As to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant's arguments and amendments persuasive and is thereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “executing, utilizing a graphics processing unit (GPU) different then the first processor unit, a plurality of simultaneous simulations” is new matter. Claims 2-4, 7-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1, 11, and 17 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. These claims recite the limitation “utilizing the GPU comprises transmitting the plurality of data objects to the GPU”. It is unclear how the GPU can be utilized for transmitting data objects to the GPU. Claims 2-4, 7-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as the GPU “receiving” the plurality of data objects. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claims recite a method, system, and product. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed.
(Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents certain methods of organizing human activity, as a method of predicting outcomes and providing customizable user plans. Predicting outcomes and providing customizable user plans is akin to certain methods of organizing human activity.
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
presenting a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI including a visual representation of projections over time for a user;
calling, utilizing a first processing unit, a planning engine through an application programming interface (API), wherein, calling the planning engine causes the planning engine to:
retrieve user profile data of the user;
generate a predicted outcome for the user based on the user profile data by:
generating, utilizing the first processor unit, a plurality of data objects each associated with a particular time span, wherein each of the plurality of data objects comprises a plurality of asset class returns weighted by an assigned asset class weight and a standard deviation across a plurality of asset classes;
utilizing a graphics processing unit (GPU) different then the first processor unit, a plurality of simultaneous simulations to generate a matrix of predicted outcomes, wherein each of the predicted outcomes is based on a simulation of one of the plurality of data objects for a corresponding particular time span, the weighted plurality of asset class returns, and the standard deviation across the plurality of asset classes of the one of the plurality of data objects, and wherein utilizing the GPU comprises transmitting the plurality of data objects to the GPU and executing one or more instructions to selectively utilize the GPU for the plurality of simultaneous simulations; and
generating, based on the matrix of predicted outcomes, the predicted output for the user based on the user profile data;
and return the predicted outcome to the GUI;
receiving the predicted outcome from the planning engine; and
updating the visual representation based on the predicted outcome.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are considered as follows:
“computer-implemented” This is merely “apply it” the computer is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“a first processing unit” This is merely “apply it” the computer is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“planning engine through an application programming interface (API)” This is merely “apply it” the engine and interface are claimed at a high level of generality, they receive the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results. This is an extra solution activity, akin to transmitting and receiving information.
“a graphics processing unit (GPU)” This is merely “apply it” this GPU is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives and displays information. This is an extra solution activity, akin to transmitting and receiving information.
“utilizing the GPU comprises transmitting the plurality of data objects to the GPU and executing one or more instructions to selectively utilize the GPU for the plurality of simultaneous simulations” This is merely “apply it” this GPU is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives the information, performs the abstract idea, and outputs the results.
“GUI” This is merely “apply it” this GUI is claimed at a high level of generality, it receives and displays information. This is an extra solution activity, akin to transmitting and receiving information.
“A computer system comprising: one or more processors; and memory” of Claim 11. This is merely “apply it” the memory and processor are claimed at a high level of generality, they receive and store the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
“At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media” of Claim 17. This is merely “apply it” the recording medium and program are claimed at a high level of generality, they receive and store the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results.
(Step 2B) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of predicting outcomes and providing customizable user plans, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20, recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more. For instance claims 2 & 3 further narrow the limitation of “the planning engine” of claim 1. Claims 4 & 5 further narrow the limitation “calling the planning engine” of claim 1. Claim 7 recites additional limitations: “receiving a recommendation from an opportunity rules engine”, “traversing a predefined and ordered list”, identifying a highest ordered candidate modification”, and “updating the GUI based on the recommendation”. These are merely “apply it” where the opportunity rules engine and GUI are claimed at a high level of generality, they receive and store the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results. Claim 8 further narrows the limitation “user profile data” of claim 1. Claim 9 further narrows the limitation “the planning engine” of claim 1 and also recites additional limitations: “call a second planning engine through a second API”, “receiving a second predicted outcome”, and “updating the visual representation”. These are merely “apply it” where the second planning engine and API are claimed at a high level of generality, they receive and store the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results. Claim 10 further narrows the GUI of claim 1 to include the limitation of an interactive control…to provide modified values, and the GUI…to transmit the modified values. These are merely “apply it” where the interactive control, GUI, and API are claimed at a high level of generality, they receive and store the information, perform the abstract idea, and output the results. Independent claims 11 and 17 and their dependents are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 and its dependents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE S KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between M-F 10am-2pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Gart may be reached at (571)-273-3955. 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.
/IRENE KANG/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
6/26/2026
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights