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 .
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-15, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. This action is made Non-Final.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Step 2A Prong One I. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity.
As noted in the MPEP, the abstract idea category of "certain methods of organizing human activity" includes "fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))...
Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is not directed to a fundamental economic principle or practice, commercial or legal interaction, or managing personal behavior. Instead, claim 1 relates to a system that operates to "model the asset data with the asset integration parameters to generate asset integration data for the assets, wherein the asset integration data corresponds to two or more combinations of the assets that may be combined based on the asset integration parameters and a relevance to the entity associated with each of the two or more combinations of the assets," "generate and provide, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device, an interface corresponding to the asset integration data, wherein the interface comprises a plurality of first elements illustrating the two or more combinations of the assets that may be combined, the plurality of elements arranged based on the relevance associated with each of the two or more combinations of the assets illustrated by the plurality of elements," "receive updated asset integration parameters," "model the asset data with the updated asset integration parameters to generate updated asset integration data for the assets, wherein the updated asset integration data corresponds to an updated relevance to the entity associated with the each of the two or more combinations of the assets based on the asset integration parameters," and "automatically move one of the plurality of elements illustrating one of the two or more combinations of the assets associated with a highest of the updated relevance to a position on the GUI higher than other of the plurality of elements." Clearly, the claims relate to improvements in graphical user interfaces and not managing personal behavior as alleged by the Examiner.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is not directed to any of the "certain methods of organizing human activity" or "mental processes" under Step 2A Prong One.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that that claims when construed, reasonably, are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The examiner respectfully notes that the features of “model the asset data with the asset integration parameters to generate asset integration data for the assets, wherein the asset integration data corresponds to two or more combination of the assets that may be combined based on the asset integration parameters and a relevance to the entity associated with each of the two or more combinations of the assets; generate and provide, the asset integration data, wherein the interface comprises a plurality of elements illustrating the two or more combinations of the assets that may be combined, the plurality of elements arranged based on the relevance associated with each of the two or more combinations of assets illustrated by the plurality of elements; receive updated asset integration parameters; model the asset data with the updated asset integration parameters to generate updated asset integration data for the assets, wherein the updated asset integration data corresponds to an updated relevance to the entity associated with each of the two or more combinations of assets based on the asset integration parameters; and move one of the plurality of elements illustrating one of the two or more combinations of the assets associated with a highest of the updated relevance to a position on the higher than other of the plurality of elements” represent concepts that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite fundamental economic practices. The asset “integration” as noted in ⁋[0001] of Applicant’s Specification is noted to fall within the field of estate planning and execution of asset combinations/transactions. The examiner respectfully notes that Step 2A-Prong 2 addresses use of system w/ processing circuit and memory that provides a GUI with automatic updates as additional elements that are not indicative of integration into a practical application as they include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Further, the examiner respectfully notes that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under Step 2A, Prong One has been updated to add Mental Processes as an enumerated subgrouping. The examiner notes the claim limitations as noted above, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant Argues: Step 2A Prong Two The MPEP states that "Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." MPEP, 2106.04(II)(A)(2). The MPEP goes on to further state, "[l]imitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include '[a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field' and '[a]pplying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception."' MPEP, 2106.04(d)(I).
Claim 1 demonstrates that any allegedly abstract feature is integrated into a practical application. For example, the features of claim 1 allow for updates to graphical user interfaces. Specifically, the features allow for an automatic update of a graphical user interface to "move one of the plurality of elements illustrating one of the two or more combinations of the assets associated with a highest of the updated relevance to a position on the GUI higher than other of the plurality of elements."
In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that the features of amended claim 1 beneficially offer an innovative way for managing a graphical user interface to ensure that a plurality of elements illustrating the two or more combinations of the assets that may be combined are arranged to provide one of the plurality of elements associated with one of the two or more combinations of the assets associated with a highest relevance to an entity higher than other of the plurality of elements associated with one of the two or more combinations of the assets associated with lower relevances. Therefore, even if amended claim 1 recites a judicial exception, which Applicant does not agree with or concede, the additional features of amended claim 1 incorporate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is directed to patent- eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that “allow[ing] for updates to graphical user interfaces” is noted to be an additional element that is described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, and ⁋[0026]). This element in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim limitation of “move one of the plurality of elements illustrating one of the two or more combinations of the assets associated with a highest of the updated relevance to a position on the higher than other of the plurality of elements” is noted to be part of the abstract idea and the “allow[ing] for updates to graphical user interfaces” is noted to be a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: As shown above, amended claim 1 is patent-eligible. However, even taking the Step 2B analysis for the sake of argument, amended claim 1 amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) states that "[w]hen making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Further, "an examiner should determine that an element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude, based on their expertise in the art, that the element is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry." (Id.). Appropriate forms of support for this factual determination include one or more of the following: "(a) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); (b) A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in Subsection II below as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); (c) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and (d) A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)." Id.
As explained above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, Applicant respectfully submits that the exemplary features of amended claim 1 recite an improvement over prior art systems that, among other features, provide improved management of graphical user interfaces, which amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Contrary to the assertions of the Examiner, Applicant submits 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.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claims are thus patent-eligible under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10 and 19 for similar reasons. Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1. Claims 11-18 depend from claim 10. Claim 20 depends from claim 19. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as well.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19 i.e., system w/ processing circuit and memory that provides a GUI with automatic updates; amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a machine, method, and/or manufacture. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
receive asset data relating to assets of an entity and asset integration parameters;
model the asset data with the asset integration parameters to generate asset integration data for the assets, wherein the asset integration data corresponds to two or more combination of the assets that may be combined based on the asset integration parameters and a relevance to the entity associated with each of the two or more combinations of the assets;
generate and provide,
receive updated asset integration parameters;
model the asset data with the updated asset integration parameters to generate updated asset integration data for the assets, wherein the updated asset integration data corresponds to an updated relevance to the entity associated with each of the two or more combinations of assets based on the asset integration parameters; and
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite fundamental economic practices or principles, (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks). The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations includes for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19 includes receive asset data relating to assets of an entity and asset integration parameters; model the asset data with the asset integration parameters to generate asset integration data for the assets, wherein the asset integration data corresponds to two or more combination of the assets that may be combined based on the asset integration parameters and a relevance to the entity associated with each of the two or more combinations of the assets; generate and provide, the asset integration data, wherein the interface comprises a plurality of elements illustrating the two or more combinations of the assets that may be combined, the plurality of elements arranged based on the relevance associated with each of the two or more combinations of assets illustrated by the plurality of elements; receive updated asset integration parameters; model the asset data with the updated asset integration parameters to generate updated asset integration data for the assets, wherein the updated asset integration data corresponds to an updated relevance to the entity associated with each of the two or more combinations of assets based on the asset integration parameters; and move one of the plurality of elements illustrating one of the two or more combinations of the assets associated with a highest of the updated relevance to a position on the higher than other of the plurality of elements, thus, the claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite fundamental economic practices.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19, i.e., system w/ processing circuit and memory that provides a GUI with automatic updates; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19, includes receive asset data relating to assets of an entity and asset integration parameters; model the asset data with the asset integration parameters to generate asset integration data for the assets, wherein the asset integration data corresponds to two or more combination of the assets that may be combined based on the asset integration parameters and a relevance to the entity associated with each of the two or more combinations of the assets; generate and provide, the asset integration data, wherein the interface comprises a plurality of elements illustrating the two or more combinations of the assets that may be combined, the plurality of elements arranged based on the relevance associated with each of the two or more combinations of assets illustrated by the plurality of elements; receive updated asset integration parameters; model the asset data with the updated asset integration parameters to generate updated asset integration data for the assets, wherein the updated asset integration data corresponds to an updated relevance to the entity associated with each of the two or more combinations of assets based on the asset integration parameters; and move one of the plurality of elements illustrating one of the two or more combinations of the assets associated with a highest of the updated relevance to a position on the higher than other of the plurality of elements, which, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19, recite i.e., system w/ processing circuit and memory that provides a GUI with automatic updates. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋[0023] and ⁋[0026]). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 10 and 19 i.e., system w/ processing circuit and memory that provides a GUI with automatic updates; amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite fundamental economic practices or principles, (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks) - i.e., asset combination and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. (US 2014/0180967 A1) discusses Meanwhile, the customer-possessed financial asset rebalancing recommendation module 111 controlled by the FPD design supporting control module 101 together with the computation modules described above communicates with the FPD design data processing module 109 and, at the point that the FPD design data 201 is generated, also communicates with the financial product backbone management server 20 through the interface module 102, the on-line network 11 or the like to search a customer account managed by them, thereby checking details of <whether the customer who has proposed the desired FPD design information already has a financial product (for example, a financial product having a investment period and a payment time similar to those of the first and second combination object financial products recorded in the FPD design data 201) (as a matter of course, this may be a common financial product)>. ([0044])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights