DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of November 26, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-10 are pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 7-10 in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating an index without significantly more.
4. Claim 7 is directed to the abstract idea of asset allocation which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic principles” hedging, mitigating risk) ] in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04).
Claim 7 recites “an … for determining the annual return rate and the annual volatility of each asset according to the returns of each asset; a … for constructing an efficient frontier, comprising determining the horizontal coordinate of the efficient frontier according to the annual return rate and determining the vertical coordinate of the efficient frontier according to the annual volatility; an … for acquiring the Sharpe ratio and the Sharpe return rate of each point within the efficient frontier, and outputting the corresponding weight of each asset when the Sharpe ratio and the Sharpe return rate are maximum”.
5. These limitations describe an abstract idea of asset allocation and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles” hedging, mitigating risk). Accordingly, claim 7 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
6. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, e.g., asset allocation system, comprising: a data processing module, frontier constructing module, asset allocation module which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 7 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
7. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than linking an abstract idea to technical components. Further when considered as a whole, the additional elements of claim 7 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
8. Claim 8 recites “further comprising a … for acquiring the returns of each asset, aligning, checking and then storing the returns for invocation by the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes a “data preprocessing module and data processing module” as an additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The 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.
9. Claim 9 recites “further comprising a … for visually displaying the efficient frontier and the determined weight ratio of each asset” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes a “display module” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
10. Claim 10 recites “further comprising a … for visually displaying the efficient frontier and the determined weight ratio of each asset” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes a “display module” as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
11. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
12. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
13. Claim 7 recites data processing steps of "determining the annual return rate and the annual volatility," "constructing an efficient frontier," "acquiring the Sharpe ratio") performed by different modules ("data processing module," "frontier constructing module"). The claim and the supporting specification lack essential details regarding how the "efficient frontier" is constructed from the return and volatility data. The efficient frontier is a financial concept with multiple potential computational methodologies. The claim merely states the frontier is constructed by "determining the horizontal coordinate... according to the annual return rate and determining the vertical coordinate... according to the annual volatility," which describes an output, not the enabling process for generating that output from a set of assets. This amounts to claiming a result without disclosing an enabling means for achieving it. Dependent claims 8-10, which add further generic features (data preprocessing, display), are likewise rejected. See MPEP § 2163 - 2163.07.
14. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
15. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
16. Claim 7 recites:
“a data processing module” , “frontier construction module”, “asset allocation module”.
17. The claim limitations above do not use the word “means” but are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use generic placeholders, “module”, that are coupled with functional language, “acts”, without reciting sufficient structures to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers.
These claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
18. Claims 8-10 are rejected as each depends on claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
20. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stubbs et al. [US Pub No. 2015/0081592 A1] in view of Zosin et al.[US Pub No. 2004/0181479 A1].
21. Regarding claim 7, Stubbs discloses an asset allocation system, comprising:
a data processing module for determining the annual return rate and the annual volatility of each asset according to the returns of each asset (0036);
a frontier constructing module for constructing an efficient frontier, comprising determining the horizontal coordinate of the efficient frontier according to the annual return rate and determining the vertical coordinate of the efficient frontier according to the annual volatility (0036).
Stubbs does not disclose however Zosin teaches an asset allocation module for acquiring the Sharpe ratio and the Sharpe return rate of each point within the efficient frontier, and outputting the corresponding weight of each asset when the Sharpe ratio and the Sharpe return rate are maximum (0022). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary to modify the disclosure of Stubbs to include the teachings of Zosin. The rationale to combine the teachings would be for improved portfolio optimization.
21. Regarding claim 8, Stubbs in view of Zosin disclose the asset allocation system according to claim 7, further comprising a data preprocessing module for acquiring the returns of each asset, aligning, checking and then storing the returns for invocation by the data processing module (claim 1).
22. Regarding claim 9, Stubbs in view of Zosin disclose the asset allocation system according to claim 7, further comprising a display module for visually displaying the efficient frontier and the determined weight ratio of each asset (0086, claim 1).
23. Regarding claim 10, Stubbs in view of Zosin disclose the asset allocation system according to claim 9, wherein the display module is also used for displaying the corresponding expected return rate, expected volatility and the corresponding Sharpe ratio of the determined weight ratio of each asset (0022). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary to modify the disclosure of Stubbs to include the teachings of Zosin. The rationale to combine the teachings would be for improved portfolio optimization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 January 29, 2026