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 Final.
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 is directed to a system that operates to "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 first element illustrating the two or more of the assets that may be combined" and "update and rearrange the interface based on the updated asset integration data such that the interface comprises a second element illustrating the additional two or more of the assets that may be combined positioned above the first element illustrating the two or more of the assets that may be combined."
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 “generate and provide the asset integration data, wherein [a] interface comprises a first element illustrating the two or more of the assets that may be combined, update and rearrange the interface based on the updated asset integration data such that the interface comprises a second element illustrating the additional two or more of the assets that may be combined positioned above the first element illustrating the two or more of the assets that may be combined” 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 processing circuitry/GUI as 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)). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Step 2A Prong Two ...Applicant submits that amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the patent eligibility analysis...
On page 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner alleges that "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." Applicant respectfully disagrees.
A problem in the field of estate planning is representatives being overwhelmed with quantities of assets of entity such that the representatives may not be able to identify assets that may be combined. Additionally, as rules are changed, representatives may not be made aware of new combinations of assets of an entity that were not previously available. To assist the representatives with identifying new combinations of assets, independent claim 1 provides a system configured to, among other features, "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 additional two or more of the assets that may be combined based on the asset integration parameters", and "update and rearrange the interface based on the updated asset integration data such that the interface comprises a second element illustrating the additional two or more of the assets that may be combined positioned above the first element illustrating the two or more of the assets that may be combined."
Applicant respectfully submits that the exemplary features of independent claim 1 reflects an improvement to a technology or technological field. By receiving updated asset integration parameters, modeling the asset data with the updated asset integration parameters to generate updated asset integration data for the assets, and updating and rearranging the interface based on the updated asset integration data such that the interface comprises a second element illustrating the additional two or more of the assets that may be combined positioned above the first element illustrating the two or more of the assets that may be combined, the claimed system provides a specific improvement over prior systems by prioritizing new combinations of assets that are available based on changes to asset integration parameters, resulting in an improved estate management experience that allows for representatives to easily identify the new combinations of assets...
In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that the features of amended claim 1 beneficially offer an innovative way for displaying assets of an entity that may be combined that ensures that users are able to identify new combinations of assets of the entity that may be combined based on updated asset integration parameters, which thereby amounts to at least an improvement in the field of estate planning. Therefore, even if amended claim 1 recites a judicial exception (which Applicant does not agree with or concede to), the additional features of amended claim 1 incorporate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is therefore patentable under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes the purported improvement, as argued, appears to lie within the abstract idea, see Step 2A-Prong One explanation above, and not to a technology or the technological field. The examiner respectfully notes claim 1, and similar claim(s) 10 and 19, recite i.e., system w/ processing circuit and memory/medium and GUI. 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. 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...
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 awareness to representatives in the field of estate planning, which amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. 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 reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 variously depend from claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively, and are therefore patentable for at least the same reasons.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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/medium and GUI; 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. The examiner respectfully notes the purported improvement, as argued, appears to lie within the abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/15/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claim(s) 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.
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 of the assets that may be combined based on the asset integration parameters;
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 additional two or more of the assets that may be combined based on the asset integration parameters; and
update and rearrange may be combined positioned above the first element illustrating the two or more of the assets that may be combined.
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 retrieving first 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 of the assets that may be combined based on the asset integration parameters; and generate and provide, the asset integration data, wherein “[a] interface” comprises a first element illustrating the two or more of the assets , that may be combined, 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 additional two or more of the assets that may be combined based on the asset integration parameters; and update and rearrange “the interface” based on the updated asset integration data such that “the interface” comprises a second element illustrating the additional two or more of the assets that may be combined positioned above the first element illustrating the two or more of the assets that may be combined, 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.
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/medium and GUI. 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/medium and GUI; 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. 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.
Gelerman (US 2014/0316954 A1) A computer implemented method for account number maintenance used within a single or multi-company accounting system is provided. The method comprises at a processor, performing the account number maintenance on at least one of a plurality of accounts. Each of the accounts has a plurality of account segments. Performing the account number maintenance includes at least one of i) renaming the account segment of at least one of the accounts; ii) changing a length the account segment of at least one of the accounts from a first defined length having a first number of characters to a new defined length having a second number of characters; iii) changing the account segment of at least one of the accounts; iv) merging two or more of the accounts into one of the accounts; and v) splitting one of the accounts into two different accounts. (Abstract).
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 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