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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 24 June 2026.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 6, 10 and 19 are amended.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10 and 13-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is not directed to a fundamental economic principle or practice, commercial or legal interaction, or managing personal behavior. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2A Prong 1 requires examiners to evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception as the applicant cited. The elements which examiner identified in Step 2A Prong 1 are those which describe the noted abstract idea which means that the claim recites an abstract idea. “The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.” See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2). “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same).” See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). The omitted element(s) (if any) are elements in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. they are not abstract) which require further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 in order to determine if they cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II). The omitted element(s) (if any) are later enumerated under Step 2A Prong 2 as additional elements. The claims recite and/or describe a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagree. “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper are explained further below with respect to point B. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed visualization has no issues being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. The claims recite a Mental Process.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claims addresses specific technical problems in the field of estate planning by reducing processing power and/or bandwidth that is needed to display adjustments to associations between assets and beneficiaries. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that applicant’s purported improvement comes from potential improvements in the judicial exception, and not from improvements to computers or technology as the recitation of computing components in the claimed invention amounts to no more than invoking computers merely as a tool. See at least MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The recitation of generic computing components to perform an otherwise ineligible judicial exception does not confer patent eligibility.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the features of amended claim 1 recite an improvement over prior art systems which amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP clarifies how additional elements can impose meaningful limits on a recited judicial exception:
“Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II))
Drawing attention to the emphasized section, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. In the current case, regardless of whether or not applicant’s invention improves the recited judicial exception, improving a method, algorithm, or process of a judicial exception absent of any technological modification, would be an improvement to the judicial exception (e.g. via the improvement in the efficiency of the judicial exception), but does not improve computers or technology.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites specific details regarding a particular solution to a particular problem, which are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, but rather amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)” (See MPEP 2106.05(II)).
In both the prior and instant Office Action, the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two are equally applied in Step 2B which further re-evaluates additional elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and evaluates these elements as per MPEP §2106.05(d) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Said elements which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity are evaluated as well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the evidentiary requirements detailed in MPEP §2106.07(a)(III) utilizing option (B) via citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II). Thus, there are no further elements to evaluate under Step 2B. Most considerations relating to any additional elements were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and thus do not require further re-evaluation in Step 2B.
Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks at pages 16-17, filed 24 June 2026, with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 24 March 2026 has been withdrawn.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a system, method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for simulating asset distribution. These are a machine, process, and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1, 10 and 19:
Claim 1, 10 and 19:
“model the asset data with the asset distribution parameters to generate initial distribution data for the assets, wherein the initial distribution data corresponds to one or more initial associations between one or more beneficiaries and the one or more assets based on the asset distribution parameters;”
“generate initial display data based on the initial distribution data and…, wherein the initial display data comprises a plurality of elements relating to the one or more associations between the one or more assets and the one or more beneficiaries, wherein the plurality of elements include one or more arrows illustrating associations between the one or more assets and the one or more beneficiaries, wherein a size of the one or more arrows from each of the assets to each of the beneficiaries is representative of a ratio of a portion of each of the assets allocated to each of the beneficiaries;”
“model the initial distribution data with the user adjustment to generate adjusted distribution data by adjusting the one or more associations between the one or more beneficiaries and the one or more assets of the initial distribution data based on the user adjustment to include a new association corresponding to the new arrow between the one of the one or more assets and the one of the one or more beneficiaries;; and”
“generate adjusted display data based on the adjusted distribution data and… such that the size of at least one of the one or more arrows is adjusted to correspond with the adjusted display data.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions or could reasonably describe Mental Processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processing circuit comprising memory and one or more processors, the processing circuit configured to:”, “by a processing circuit”, “to a user interface of a user device”, or “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processing circuit, cause the processing circuit to perform operations comprising:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions or reasonably describing Mental Processes. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Business Relations or could reasonably describe Observations and Evaluations. Business Relations is described when managing and communicating asset distributions of a user. Observations and Evaluations is described when collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions or Concepts Performed in the Human Mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas respectively.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claims 1, 10 and 19:
“receive asset data relating to one or more assets of a person and asset distribution parameters;”
“…provide the initial display data to a user interface of a user device…”
“receive a user adjustment to at least one of the elements of the plurality of elements from the user device, wherein the user adjustment is interfacing with the user interface to drag and drop a new arrow from one of the plurality of elements relating to one of the one or more assets to one of the plurality of elements relating to one of the one or more beneficiaries;;”
“…provide the adjusted display data to the user interface.”
Claim 1:
“a processing circuit comprising memory and one or more processors, the processing circuit configured to:”
Claim 10:
“…by a processing circuit…”
Claim 19:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processing circuit, cause the processing circuit to perform operations comprising:”
The computer components (processor, memory user device, user interface, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor, generic storage, generic device, and generic user interface) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The receiving and providing step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generally receiving and generally providing) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of dragging/dropping arrows is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
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 identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for receiving/providing various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 4-9, 13-18 and 20 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that a search was performed but did not result in a prior art rejection. While resizing of arrows is known in art, representing proportions via arrow size is known in the art, and changing arrow size based on UI input is known in the art, the ordered combination of all these elements in combination with the remainder of the elements in the claims as a whole would not render the claims obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Racanelli et al. (US 2012/0284201 A1) discloses receiving balance sheet inputs including asset, event, estate, and tax liability information; modelling and generating a first disposition flowchart visually depicting the disposition of asset and liability information after a first conveyance event indicating portion of the asset information conveyed to a first beneficiary.
Mamou et al. (US 2005/0222931 A1) discloses dragging and dropping new arrows to show process flow directions.
Breitweiser et al. (US 2022/0188934 A1) discloses triggering events resulting in well-being tasks including removing individuals as a beneficiary.
Donogue et al. (US 2006/0004605 A1) discloses using drag and drop arrows to illustrate healthcare facility operations.
Foote et al. (US 11,816,749 B1) discloses user updating information including removing beneficiaries.
Moran (WO 00/13101 A1) discloses analyzing client assets and visualizing settlement needs based on death events.
Tkach et al. (“A Model of the Digital Inheritance Process”) discloses a security model for digital inheritance.
Roques (US 2015/0301698 A1) discloses Sankey graph representation wherein the width of an arrow is proportional to the number of links existing between the software assets in the group and the characteristic represented by that icon.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights