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 18 October 2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 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;”
“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; and”
“generate adjusted display data based on the adjusted distribution data and…”
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;”
“…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).)
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) 2-9, 11-18 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.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 further recite dragging and dropping arrows and resizing arrows with a slider. The use of dragging/dropping arrows and slider resizing is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) 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).)
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 dependent claims do not recite any elements which would be considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13, 15-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Racanelli et al. (US 2012/0284201 A1 hereinafter Racanelli).
Claim 1
A system comprising:
a processing circuit comprising memory and one or more processors, the processing circuit configured to: (Racanelli discloses embodying their invention using one or more processors coupled to memory. See at least paragraph [0071].)
receive asset data relating to one or more assets of a person and asset distribution parameters; (Racanelli discloses receiving balance sheet inputs including asset, event, estate, and tax liability information. See at least paragraph [0006].)
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; (Racanelli discloses 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. See at least paragraph [0007].)
generate initial display data based on the initial distribution data and provide the initial display data to a user interface of a user device, 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; (Racanelli discloses 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. See at least paragraph [0007] and Fig. 7.)
receive a user adjustment to at least one of the elements of the plurality of elements from the user device; (Racanelli discloses user inputs to adjust the balance sheets. See at least paragraphs [0033]-[0034].)
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; and (Racanelli discloses additional iterations of the disposition flowcharts, tax estimates and liquidity analysis may optionally be performed based upon subsequent events or changes in circumstances. See at least paragraph [0032].)
generate adjusted display data based on the adjusted distribution data and provide the adjusted display data to the user interface. (Racanelli discloses additional iterations of the disposition flowcharts, tax estimates and liquidity analysis may optionally be performed based upon subsequent events or changes in circumstances. See at least paragraphs [0032] and [0069].)
Claim 4
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuit is further configured to:
identify one or more variations between the initial distribution data and the adjusted distribution data; (Racanelli discloses identifying and testing alternative or additional planning strategies. See at least paragraph [0030].)
model the one or more variations between the initial distribution data and the adjusted distribution data with the asset distribution parameters to generate suggestion data, wherein the suggestion data corresponds to one or more changes to the asset distribution parameters that would reduce the one or more variations between the initial distribution data and the adjusted distribution data; and (Racanelli discloses alternatives compared to the current or base scenario and giving a recommendation of one or more gifting alternatives based on benefits and disadvantages. See at least paragraph [0030]. (i.e. reducing the variations between the initial and adjusted distributions.))
generate suggestion display data of the suggestion data and provide the suggestion display data to the user interface. (Racanelli discloses showing the impact of various strategies. See at least paragraph [0031].)
Claim 6
The system of claim 1, the processing circuit is further configured to:
receive gift data relating to one or more gifts of the person and gift distribution parameters, wherein the gifts have been previously gifted by the person; (Racanelli discloses asset information may include gifts. See at least paragraph [0001]. Racanelli discloses information may be collected from a recent gift tax return (i.e. gift was preciously given by the person). See at least paragraph [0037].)
model the gift data with the gift distribution parameters to generate gift distribution data for the one or more gifts, wherein the gift distribution data corresponds to one or more associations between one or more beneficiaries and one or more gifts based on the gift distribution parameters; and (Racanelli discloses additional iterations of the disposition flowcharts, tax estimates and liquidity analysis may optionally be performed based upon subsequent events or changes in circumstances. See at least paragraph [0032] and [0069].)
update the initial distribution data to include the gift distribution data. (Racanelli discloses additional iterations of the disposition flowcharts, tax estimates and liquidity analysis may optionally be performed based upon subsequent events or changes in circumstances. See at least paragraphs [0032] and [0069].)
Claim 7
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuit is further configured to:
receive a user request for a distribution report from the user device; and (Racanelli discloses tabs allowing for users to switch between views (i.e. requests for reports). See at least paragraph [0033].)
generate and provide the distribution report to the user interface, wherein the distribution report comprises a graphical summary of the one or more assets associated with each of the beneficiaries. (Racanelli discloses generating a liquidity analysis report (i.e. a distribution report). See at least paragraph [0007]. Racanelli discloses report including a graphical summary. See at least paragraphs [0059]-[0060].)
Claim 9
The system of claim 1, wherein the initial display data further comprises an initial pie chart displaying an initial ratio of an initial value of the one or more assets associated with each of the beneficiaries to a combined value of all of the assets; and (Racanelli discloses display data displaying a pie chart showing proportions of the client’s estate that eventually reaches their intended beneficiaries or charities. See at least paragraph [0010] and Fig. 10.)
wherein the adjusted display data further comprises an adjusted pie chart displaying an adjusted ratio of an adjusted value of the one or more assets associated with each of the beneficiaries to the combined value of all of the assets. (Racanelli discloses additional iterations of the disposition flowcharts, tax estimates and liquidity analysis may optionally be performed based upon subsequent events or changes in circumstances. See at least paragraphs [0032] and [0069]. Racanelli discloses display data displaying a pie chart showing proportions of the client’s estate that eventually reaches their intended beneficiaries or charities. See at least paragraph [0010] and Fig. 10.)
Claim 10
A method comprising:
…
The remainder of Claim 10 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 4 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 6 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 7 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 9 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
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: (Racanelli discloses embodiment on hard disk drive or other non-transitory computer-readable storage media executed by a processor. See at least paragraphs [0077]-[0078].)
…
The remainder of Claim 19 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 4 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racanelli et al. (US 2012/0284201 A1 hereinafter Racanelli) in view of Mamou et al. (US 2005/0222931 A1 hereinafter Mamou).
Claim 2
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elements include one or more arrows illustrating associations between the one or more assets and the one or more beneficiaries; and (Racanelli discloses elements including flowchart arrows. See at least paragraph [0055] and Fig. 7.)
wherein the user adjustment is at least one of dragging and dropping a new arrow from one of the assets to one of the beneficiaries, changing a size of the one or more arrows, or selecting a condition associated with one of the beneficiaries. (Although Racanelli does disclose adjusting arrows associated with the asset visualization, they might not explicitly disclose the adjustments of the above claim. Mamou teaches dragging and dropping new arrows to show process flow directions. See at least paragraph [0213] and Fig. 10.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to drag and drop new arrows as taught by Mamou into the flow process of Racanelli because Mamou additionally teaches the motivation that this lets a user set up a flow process. See at least paragraph [0231].
Also dragging and dropping arrows as taught by Mamou into the flow process of Racanelli is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.)
Claim 11
Claim 11 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 2 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racanelli et al. (US 2012/0284201 A1 hereinafter Racanelli).
Claim 5
The system of claim 4, wherein the suggestion display data comprises at least one actionable element; and (Racanelli discloses alternatives compared to the current or base scenario and giving a recommendation of one or more gifting alternatives based on benefits and disadvantages. See at least paragraph [0030]. Racanelli discloses showing the impact of various strategies. See at least paragraph [0031].)
wherein in response to a selection of the at least one actionable element, the processing circuit is further configured to modify the asset distribution parameters with the one or more changes of the suggestion data. (Racanelli discloses implementing the alternative estimates in the estate plan. See at least paragraph [0066]. Racanelli discloses implementing action buttons. See at least paragraph [0046]. Although Racanelli does disclose implementing the alternative estimates in the estate plan and does disclose action buttons, they might not explicitly disclose modifying the asset distribution parameters with the changes of the suggestion data in response to selection of the actionable element. Racanelli also discloses that users may enter commands and information into the computer through user interface elements. See at least paragraph [0080].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the alternative estimates in the estate plan as taught by Racanelli using an interface to implement a command as taught by Racanelli using a disclosed action button also taught by Racanelli because implementing alternative estimates is a disclosed command and the action button is a disclosed interface and doing so is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.)
Claim 14
Claim 14 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 5 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racanelli et al. (US 2012/0284201 A1 hereinafter Racanelli) in view of Breitweiser et al. (US 2022/0188934 A1 hereinafter Breitweiser).
Claim 8
The system of claim 1, wherein the user adjustment comprises selecting an excluding condition associated with one of the beneficiaries; and (While Racanelli does disclose user events yielding differing asset allocations associated with one of the beneficiaries, they might not explicitly disclose an event being an excluding condition. Breitweiser teaches triggering events resulting in well-being tasks including removing individuals as a beneficiary. See at least paragraphs [0051]-[0053].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the well-being tasks of Breitweiser in the system of Racanelli because Breitweiser teaches that this results in an improved technique for monitoring user well-being. See at least paragraph [0004].
Also, implementing the well-being tasks of Breitweiser in the system of Racanelli is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.)
wherein the initial distribution data is modeled with the user adjustment to generate the adjusted distribution data by reallocating the one or more assets associated with the one of the beneficiaries to a remainder of the beneficiaries. (Racanelli discloses additional iterations of the disposition flowcharts, tax estimates and liquidity analysis may optionally be performed based upon subsequent events or changes in circumstances. See at least paragraphs [0032] and [0069]. Racanelli discloses implementing event inputs which allow for projection of estate disposition and tax events for a wide range of circumstances. See at least paragraph [0028].)
Claim 17
Claim 17 is substantially similar to or broader than the corresponding elements in Claim 8 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that a search was performed but did not result in a prior art rejection over claims 3 and 12. While resizing of arrows is known in art, representing proportions via arrow size is known in the art, and resizing using a slider scale is known in the art, the ordered combination of all the elements in combination with those in the parent claims would not render the claims obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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