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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/18/2026 has been entered.
The following is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination of 02/18/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14, as originally filed 02/18/2026, are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1 and 9 being independent). Claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 6-7):
(1) Applicant's arguments that “The claimed embodiment is not merely a method of organizing human activity or a fundamental economic practice; it is a specific technical architecture that improves the performance of the computer system itself by optimizing network usage and processing latency.” (see remarks, page 6), are not found persuasive.
In response (1): In the instant application, under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04. The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the computer components (e.g., processors, an asset database, servers, a user interface). Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Managing a risk in a diversified security portfolio and a portfolio of an investment is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Furthermore, the claim limits also recite the use of processors, database, servers, user interface, and computer software as additional elements. However, the use of these additionally elements, described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. In conclusion, Examiner fails to see how to improve the performance of the computer system itself by optimizing network usage and processing latency as argued.
(2) Applicant's arguments that “This is a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer. By maintaining a prefetched inventory (the "Pool of Assets") and satisfying user requests via local read/write database operations rather than external network calls, the claimed invention reduces network traffic and reduces latency. For example, network traffic is reduced by eliminating the need to transmit buy/sell orders over a network to an external broker for every individual allocation.” (see remarks, page 7), are not found persuasive.
In response (2): In the instant application, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981 ). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “an asset database”, “one or more processors” , and “one or more servers” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component (e.g. “apply it”) 2) “a user interface” describe transmitting generic instructions to a generic device. The server or a user interface is not described in the specification in such a way require anything more than merely a generically transmitting data or instructions, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a server and client combination, or generically over the network. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) 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. apply it with 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 claim limits also recite the use of processors, an asset database, servers, user interface as additional elements. However, the use of these additionally elements, described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. In conclusion, Examiner fails to see how the claimed invention reduces network traffic and reduces latency by eliminating the need to transmit buy/sell orders over a network to an external broker for every individual allocation as argued.
(3) Applicant's arguments that “The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to specific improvements in computer capabilities are patent eligible. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (finding claims directed to a self-referential database table eligible because they improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data); see also Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys. (finding claims that reduced network traffic were eligible).” (see remarks, page 7), are not found persuasive.
In response (3): In Enfish, the courts applied the distinction to reject the §101 challenge at stage one because the claims in Enfish focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement a particular database technique in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1348-49, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). But, the present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. So Enfish has no applicability. In Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys, the patents were related to network packet monitoring and analysis of conversational flows. In contract, the instant case is for determining a weighting of a diversified security portfolio and providing the determined weighting and the modified diversified security portfolio to a user with merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. So Packet Intelligence has no applicability.
With regard to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing newly amended claim language. Further as noted in the citation above the prior art and the amendments are addressed by the rejections cited under 35 USC 103. (see below clarifying citations with regard the O’Shaughnessy in view of Panchekha references have been made to the 35 USC § 103 rejection above.) As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-14 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.
As the recited claim in independent claims 1 and 9, “portfolio configuration parameters obtained by the one or more processors”, “executing an internal database transaction that reduces a balance of said inventory in the pool of assets”, and “records said quantity in the diversified security portfolio without generating an external market order for said quantity”, these subject matters are not properly described in the application as filed, and provide an explanation of your position. And, also it is not described with sufficient detail beyond the claimed function being repeated in the written description.
Dependent claims (2-8 and 10-14) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
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.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for managing a risk based on a diversified security portfolio and a portfolio of an investment which contains the steps of receiving, configuring, determining, and transmitting. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is direct to a method and claim 9 is direct to a system, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes. Examiner notes claim 13 does not pass step 1, as it’s directed towards software per se as explained above,
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for managing a risk based on a diversified security portfolio and a portfolio of an investment is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include (e.g., independent claim 1): {… determining a weighting of a diversified security portfolio; receiving,… a plurality of securities…. a pool of assets holding an inventory of securities purchased prior to allocation; upon receipt of the securities, configuring, …. said diversified security portfolio based on portfolio configuration parameters obtained …., wherein the configuring comprises allocating a quantity of said plurality of securities from the inventory of the pool of assets to the diversified security portfolio ….. that reduces a balance of said inventory in the pool of assets and records said quantity in the diversified security portfolio without generating an external market order for said quantity; determining, …. the weighting of the configured diversified security portfolio, said determining being based on market data parameters provided …., said market data parameters comprising market capitalization of the respective security, volatility of the respective security and correlation between the securities within the diversified security portfolio, and modifying the configured diversified security portfolio based on the determined weighting to obtain a modified diversified security portfolio; transmitting, ….the determined weighting and the modified diversified security portfolio to a user …..}
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions as determining a weighting of a diversified security portfolio and providing the determined weighting and the modified diversified security portfolio to a user.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “one or more processors”, “one or more servers”, and “asset database” amount to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component (e.g. “apply it”) 2) “a user interface” describe transmitting generic instructions to a generic device. The user interface is not described in the specification in such a way require anything more than merely a generically transmitting data or instructions, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component and client combination, or generically over the network. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) 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. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it with 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 instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. processors, database, servers, user interface) 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 use a generic computing technology (Specification paragraphs [107-109]: “the system further comprises a sixth module”, “a computer software”, “instructions”, “a processor”, “a computer-readable non-transient recording medium”) as apply it with 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)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., processors, database, servers, user interface, and computer software) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f)(h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claim 2, the step of “… wherein the configuring comprises transferring a number of shares of said respective security …. or transferring a number of shares of said respective security ….” (i.e., transferring a share), in claims 3 and 10, the step of “… storing, …., a plurality of fee matrices, said fee matrices comprising at least one fee among an entry fee, an exit fee, a management fee, and a performance fee of the modified diversified security portfolio, ….” (i.e., storing fee matrices), in claims 4 and 11, the step of “… storing, …, static data, and (ii) receiving transaction instructions.” (i.e., storing and receiving data), in claims 5 and 12, the step of “computing, …., one or more of a dividend, a coupon, an asset price, and an exchange rate of the respective security of the diversified security portfolio...” (i.e., computing a dividend), in claim 6, the step of “… receiving, the configuring, the determining, and the transmitting are carried out iteratively for the respective security…..” (i.e., monitoring a value of the weighting), in claim 7, the step of “… (i) the transferring of the number of shares of the respective security …. (ii) the transferring the number of shares of said respective security …., and (iii) transferring a transaction instruction of the respective security ….” (i.e., transferring a share), and in claim 8, the step of “… providing the user interface, …., with a notification message, said notification message comprising at least one of an information of the diversified security portfolio, a transaction suggestion of the security in the diversified security portfolio ….” (i.e., providing a message to a user) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a computer component. Performing a rebalancing of the assets for a diversified security portfolio in order to reduce a risk is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 1 and 9 above. Merely claiming the same process to perform a rebalancing of the assets for a diversified security portfolio in order to reduce a risk does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered 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 U.S.C. 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.
In the rejections below, where claims are currently amended, this is indicated by underlining.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaughnessy et al. (hereinafter O’Shaughnessy), US Publication Number 2010/0325062 A1 in view of Panchekha et al. (hereinafter Panchekha), US Patent Number 11,842,403 B1.
Regarding claim 1:
O’Shaughnessy discloses the following:
A method for determining a weighting of a diversified security portfolio, the method comprising: (O’Shaughnessy: See paragraph [0090] “subscribers 109 will see various aspects of each security in the list of security recommendations including ticker, name, exchange, indicated current price of the security, indicated number of shares to be purchased, and an adjusted indicated market value to be invested each security. The indicated market value to be invested in each stock is determined by the weight of the security in the strategy as determined by the strategy's methodology (i.e.: stocks may be equal weighted or weighted by market capitalization in the portfolio) multiplied by the amount the subscriber 109 indicates to invest in the strategy.”, and see also [0128-0129])
receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of securities from an asset database configured as a pool of assets holding an inventory of securities purchased prior to allocation; (O’Shaughnessy: See paragraph [0055] “the user 101 sees a list of stocks provided by the PMP host computer 103.”, and see also [0007] and [0135-0136], Notes: Examiner considers PMP’s database discloses “a pool of assets holding an inventory of securities purchased prior to allocation” as per the amended claim. That is the PMP’s database holds a pool of assets of securities available to review each of the component strategies to make a custom portfolio and create out of such strategies his own portfolio prior to invest as described in [0007] and [0135-0136])
upon receipt of the securities (reads on “the user 101 sees a list of stocks provided by the PMP host computer 103”), configuring (reads on “the PMP 103 will generate a list of transactions that will transform the existing/old ebasket 406 to the current list of security recommendations 304”), by the one or more processors, said diversified security portfolio based on portfolio configuration parameters obtained by the one or more processors, wherein the configuring comprises allocating a quantity of said plurality of securities from the inventory of the pool of assets to the diversified security portfolio by executing an internal database transaction that reduces a balance of said inventory in the pool of assets and records said quantity in the diversified security portfolio without generating an external market order for said quantity; (O’Shaughnessy: See paragraphs [0050] “the user 101 sees a list of stocks provided by the PMP host computer 103”, [0129] “the PMP 103 will generate a list of transactions that will transform the existing/old ebasket 406 to the current list of security recommendations 304. This is transaction 708. Hypothetically, DELL resides in the ebasket 406, but has appreciated over the year to the point that its weight in the existing ebasket 406 is 40% of the whole. The current security recommendations 304 as a result of applying the strategy recommendation 206 to the current universe suggests that DELL should remain in the new ebasket but have only a 10% weighting to the whole. The PMP as a result of the comparison 707 will generate a transaction for DELL in action 708 sufficient to reduce its weight in the new ebasket to roughly 10%.”, and see also [0007], and Notes: Examiner considers the amended claim “executing an internal database transaction that reduces a balance of said inventory in the pool of assets” and “records said quantity in the diversified security portfolio without generating an external market order for said quantity” are not properly described in the specification. Further, the reference discloses the PMP configures to create a composite custom portfolio (i.e. the claimed: “the diversified security portfolio”) by the degree to which they satisfy the requirements of the strategy and the user makes a decision to purchase the instruments in that portfolio after making appropriate reviews without an market order.)
O’Shaughnessy does not explicitly disclose the following, however Panchekha further teaches:
determining (reads on “adding a new set of securities and associated new weights to the ensemble portfolio”), by the one or more processors, the weighting (reads on “associated new weights”) of the configured diversified security portfolio (reads on “the ensemble portfolio”), said determining being based on market data parameters (reads on “the determined investment characteristic comprises one or more of volatility of the investor portfolio, dividend yield of the investor portfolio, market capitalization of the investor portfolio, and correlation of the investor portfolio to a secondary reference portfolio”) provided by one or more servers, said market data parameters comprising market capitalization of the respective security, volatility of the respective security and correlation between the securities within the diversified security portfolio, and modifying (reads on “adding a new set of securities and associated new weights to the ensemble portfolio to modify a determined investment characteristic of the investor portfolio”) the configured diversified security portfolio based on the determined weighting to obtain a modified diversified security portfolio; and (Panchekha: See column 5, lines 53-65: “In some embodiments, the instructions further cause the at least one hardware processor to generate an investor portfolio based on the ensemble portfolio, comprising adding leverage to at least a portion of the ensemble portfolio, de-leveraging at least a portion of the ensemble portfolio, or both, and adding a new set of securities and associated new weights to the ensemble portfolio to modify a determined investment characteristic of the investor portfolio, wherein the determined investment characteristic comprises one or more of volatility of the investor portfolio, dividend yield of the investor portfolio, market capitalization of the investor portfolio, and correlation of the investor portfolio to a secondary reference portfolio.”)
transmitting (reads on “a new investment portfolio in order to deliver the portfolio to a customer”), by the one or more processors, the determined weighting and the modified diversified security portfolio to a user interface. (Panchekha: See column 12, lines 4-47: “The computing device (e.g., via the delivery unit 118 in FIG. 1) constructs new dynamic investment portfolio based on the series of outputs from the Ensemble-enhanced predictive engine, such as by inserting the full series of outputs, or a subset of the outputs, from the Ensemble-enhanced predictive engine into a new investment portfolio in order to deliver the portfolio to a customer”, and Notes: Examiner considers that the cited “a new investment portfolio” teaches the recited claim as updating securities and weights on a portfolio for each portfolio selected in order to provide the new portfolio to a customer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each stock that is determined by the weight of the security in the strategy as determined by the strategy's methodology (i.e.: stocks may be equal weighted or weighted by market capitalization in the portfolio) of O’Shaughnessy to include adding a new set of securities and associated new weights to the ensemble portfolio to modify a determined investment characteristic of the investor portfolio, wherein the determined investment characteristic comprises one or more of volatility of the investor portfolio, dividend yield of the investor portfolio, market capitalization of the investor portfolio, and correlation of the investor portfolio, as taught by Panchekha, in order to reduce a risk for a diversified security portfolio. (See Panchekha: column 1, line 25 through column 2, line 40)
Regarding claim 2:
O’Shaughnessy discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuring comprises transferring a number of shares of said respective security from the asset database to the one or more processors or transferring a number of shares of said respective security from the one or more processors to the asset database to modify a percentage of the respective security present in the diversified security portfolio. (O’Shaughnessy: See paragraph [0129] “the PMP 103 will generate a list of transactions that will transform the existing/old ebasket 406 to the current list of security recommendations 304. This is transaction 708. Hypothetically, DELL resides in the ebasket 406, but has appreciated over the year to the point that its weight in the existing ebasket 406 is 40% of the whole. The current security recommendations 304 as a result of applying the strategy recommendation 206 to the current universe suggests that DELL should remain in the new ebasket but have only a 10% weighting to the whole. The PMP as a result of the comparison 707 will generate a transaction for DELL in action 708 sufficient to reduce its weight in the new ebasket to roughly 10%.”, and see also [0128])
Regarding claim 3:
O’Shaughnessy discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising storing, by the one or more processors, a plurality of fee matrices, said fee matrices comprising at least one fee among an entry fee, an exit fee, a management fee, and a performance fee of the modified diversified security portfolio, one or more processors being configured to determine transaction instructions of the respective security to be carried out. (O’Shaughnessy: See paragraph [0088] “For example, if the user decides to invest $100,000 and the first fee is $29.95 and the second fee is $14.95, then the PMP subtracts those fees to get $99,955.10. This number is divided by the number of stocks in the folio. For example, if there are 20 stocks in the folio, $4997 .7 5 is allocated per stock in the strategy.”)
Regarding claim 6:
O’Shaughnessy discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving, the configuring, the determining, and the transmitting are carried out iteratively for the respective security as long as a value of the weighting is smaller than a predetermined level. (O’Shaughnessy: See paragraph [0129] “DELL resides in the ebasket 406, but has appreciated over the year to the point that its weight in the existing ebasket 406 is 40% of the whole. The current security recommendations 304 as a result of applying the strategy recommendation 206 to the current universe suggests that DELL should remain in the new ebasket but have only a 10% weighting to the whole. The PMP as a result of the comparison 707 will generate a transaction for DELL in action 708 sufficient to reduce its weight in the new ebasket to roughly 10%.”)
Regarding claim 7:
O’Shaughnessy discloses the following:
The method according to claim further comprising validating, by the one or more processors, one of: (i) the transferring of the number of shares of the respective security from the asset database to the one or more processors (ii) the transferring the number of shares of said respective security from the one or more processors to the asset database, and (iii) transferring a transaction instruction of the respective security to be carried out. (O’Shaughnessy: See paragraph [0101] “If authorization is given in 501, the PMP 103 records this in addition to the desired transactions in its database 503, and subsequently queues an order for the transactions with the broker in action 504. In a simplified representation, the broker receives the orders 505 and executes them in action 506. The PMP 103 receives confirmations of executions from the broker 104 in action 507. The PMP 103 will notify the subscriber/account holder of execution and confirmation.”)
Regarding claim 8:
O’Shaughnessy discloses the following:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising providing the user interface, by the one or more processors, with a notification message, said notification message comprising at least one of an information of the diversified security portfolio, a transaction suggestion of the security in the diversified security portfolio, and a service improvement suggestion. (O’Shaughnessy: See paragraph [0090] “subscribers 109 will see various aspects of each security in the list of security recommendations including ticker, name, exchange, indicated current price of the security, indicated number of shares to be purchased, and an adjusted indicated market value to be invested each security. The indicated market value to be invested in each stock is determined by the weight of the security in the strategy as determined by the strategy's methodology (i.e.: stocks may be equal weighted or weighted by market capitalization in the portfolio) multiplied by the amount the subscriber 109 indicates to invest in the strategy.”, and see also [0128-0129])
Regarding claim 9: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10: it is similar scope to claim 3, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 13 and 14: it is similar scope to claim 1, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaughnessy in view of Panchekha in further view of Hoffman et al. (hereinafter Hoffman), WO 01/31538 A1.
Regarding claim 4:
O’Shaughnessy and Panchekha do not explicitly disclose the following, however Hoffman further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising one or more of: (i) storing, by the one or more processors, static data, and (ii) receiving transaction instructions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each stock that is determined by the weight of the security in the strategy as determined by the strategy's methodology (i.e.: stocks may be equal weighted or weighted by market capitalization in the portfolio) of O’Shaughnessy to include storing the results of the static computations in the database, as taught by Hoffman, in order to use it without a change. (See Hoffman: page 42)
Regarding claim 11: it is similar scope to claim 4, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Shaughnessy in view of Panchekha in further view of Van Erlach, US Publication Number 2010/0042533 A1.
Regarding claim 5:
O’Shaughnessy and Panchekha do not explicitly disclose the following, however Van Erlach further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising computing, by the one or more processors, one or more of a dividend, a coupon, an asset price, and an exchange rate of the respective security of the diversified security portfolio, the computing being based on the current said market data parameters and on the determined weighting. (Van Erlach: See paragraphs [0012], [0015], [0049], and [0101])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each stock that is determined by the weight of the security in the strategy as determined by the strategy's methodology (i.e.: stocks may be equal weighted or weighted by market capitalization in the portfolio) of O’Shaughnessy to include performing an asset analysis such as computing a dividend, a coupon, an exchange rate, and etc. as taught by Van Erlach, in order to manage a portfolio better. (See Van Erlach: paragraphs [0004-0008])
Regarding claim 12: it is similar scope to claim 5, and thus it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, 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, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694
March 4, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694