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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 has been entered.
The following is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination of 04/03/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 4-23, as originally filed 04/03/2026, are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 1 and 16 being independent), and claims 4 and 16 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the line 21, claim 4: the recited claim “calculating first allocated percentage of the first metal item a second allocated percentage of the second metal item;” should be “calculating a first allocated percentage of the first metal item and a second allocated percentage of the second metal item;”. Claim 16 has similar issues. Appropriate correction is required
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn because the amendment to claims 4 and 16 has been properly addressed to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(a).
Applicants assert that the pending claims fully comply with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument and amendments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant’s arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 10-13)
(1) Applicant’s arguments that “Claims 4 and 16 as amended recite specific technical implementations that go beyond merely automating a fundamental economic practice. The claims recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem unique to precious metal portfolio allocation. Unlike many financial assets that can be fractionally divided, precious metal items are purchased in whole integers at a unit cost per item." (see page 10), are not found persuasive.
Response (1): Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04. The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of a computer. Managing a risk of investing in financial instruments is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(2) Applicant’s arguments that “The claims as amended integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific technical solution to the technical problem of allocating whole units of precious metal items while minimizing cash remainders.” (see page 12), are not found persuasive.
Response (2): It is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981 ). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field, and by allocating whole units of precious metal items while minimizing cash remainders is a business solution to a business problem instead of solving the technical problem. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. In particular the claim limits of “the processor is configured for…” or “metal item percent database” are claimed and described at a high level of generality and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor and/or a computer component. The claim limits also recite the use of a processor, a memory, a metal item percent database, and trading platforms as additional elements. However, the use of these additionally elements, described at a high level of generality, perform generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
(3) Applicant’s arguments that “The specific algorithmic steps recited in claims 4 and 16 as amended, including the floor function conversion, the dual-instance calculation at order and purchase times, the iterative allocation with reverse-order reiteration, the availability verification with alternative selection, and the hierarchical database organization-collectively represent significantly more than an abstract idea.”, (see page 12), are not found persuasive.
Response (3): 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 (Claims: e.g., a processor, a memory, a metal item percent database, and trading platforms) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using a computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 4-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step (1): In the instant case, the claims are directed towards to a method for providing an automated numismatist which contains the steps of receiving, calculating, correlating, determining, selecting, allocating, and recalculating. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 4 is direct to a system and claim 16 is direct to a method, i.e. machines programmed to carrying out process steps, Step 1-yes.
Step (2A) Prong 1: A method for providing an automated numismatist is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include: {… receiving data associated with a plurality of metal items; receiving user information comprising demographic information, an investment amount, and an indicator of one or more types of metal; calculating an indicator based on both the demographic information and the investment amount; correlating the indicator to a tier in a metal item percent database based on the indicator and a range of the investment amount, wherein the metal item percent database is organized hierarchically by metal type, and within each metal type by risk tier, and within each risk tier by the range of the investment amount; determining a set of optimal metal items from the plurality of metals based on the indicator and the data, wherein the determining comprises: selecting a first and a second metal item, from ……., based on the indicator that is correlated with the tier; calculating first allocated percentage of the first metal item a second allocated percentage of the second metal item; determining the set of optimal metal items by calculating a number of whole units of the first metal item in the first allocated percentage and a number of whole units of the second metal item in the second allocated percentage by dividing an item investment amount by an item price and converting the result to an integer using a floor function, based on a value and inventory of the first and second metal item and the investment amount, wherein calculating the number of whole units is performed in a first instance at a time associated with an order and in a second instance at a time of purchase, wherein the value of the first and second metal items differs between the first instance and the second instance; calculating a fractional remainder when the first allocated percentage and the second allocated percentage cannot be fulfilled by whole units of the first and second metal items; selecting supplemental metal items from a same series as the first and second metal items to minimize the fractional remainder; iteratively allocating the supplemental metal items to minimize the fractional remainder, and upon completing allocation of all metal items, reiterating in reverse order to fill any total remainder while ignoring individual item allocation percentage limits; wherein …. is further configured to recalculate and revise the set of optimal metal items based on pricing at a time of closing of a financial transaction when the pricing differs from pricing at a time of initial calculation.}
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial or legal interactions as calculating and revising the set of optimal metal items based on pricing at a time of closing of a financial transaction when the pricing differs from pricing at a time of initial calculation, and allocating the supplemental metal items to minimize the fractional remainder, and upon completing allocation of all metal items.
Step (2A) Prong 2: The instant claims (e.g., independent claims 4 and 16) do not integrate the exception into a practical application because additional elements: 1) “memory coupled to the processor” or “program instructions executable by the processor” amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a computer component. (e.g. “apply it”) 2) “metal item percent database”, describes storing data to a storage. The “database” is not described in the specification in such a way require anything more than merely a generically storing data, and therefore also amounts to simply applying the abstract idea to a generic computer element. (e.g. “apply it” or the equivalent) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. a processor, a memory, a metal item percent database, and trading platforms) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification pages 20-21: “the processing device 502 represents one or more general-purpose processing devices such as microprocessor”, ‘The computer 500 may further include a network interface device 508”, “a centralized or distributed database”) as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h) or apply it 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step (2B): 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 (Claims: e.g., a processor, a memory, a metal item percent database, and trading platforms) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exactly using generic computer component. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea.
The computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05 (f)(h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 5-15 and 17-23 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, in claims 5 and 17, the step of “… wherein the user information further comprises a subjective self-assessed tolerance indicator, and wherein calculating the indicator comprises calculating an objective assessment indicator based on the demographic information….” (i.e., calculating an indicator), in claims 6 and 18, the step of “… wherein the demographic information comprises age of a user, and wherein the objective assessment indicator is determined….” (i.e., assessment indicator is determined), in claims 7 and 19, the step of “… wherein the data associated with the plurality of metal items comprises a metal item inventory table including, for each metal item, an identifier, a value in currency units ...” (i.e., having data such as a metal item inventory table), in claims 8 and 20, the step of “… wherein the metal item percent database comprises sets of variables including an investment amount range, a risk tier, and an indication of types of metal, ...” (i.e., using database), in claims 9 and 21, the step of “… calculating a first remainder of a first allocated amount and a second remainder of a second allocated amount, ...” (i.e., calculating…), in claims 10 and 22, the step of “… wherein the supplemental metal items are selected from a supplemental items database that associates supplemental metal items ...” (i.e., selecting metal items), in claims 11 and 23, the step of “… wherein the supplemental metal items comprise smaller denomination items within a same series ...” (i.e., having supplemental metal items), in claim 12, the step of “… recalculating the number of whole units at a time of purchase when values of the first and second metal items differ from values ...” (i.e., recalculating…), in claim 13, the step of “… wherein the one or more types of metal comprise at least one of gold, silver, platinum ...” (i.e., types of metal), in claim 14, the step of “… generating a portfolio information set comprising the set of optimal metal items, quantities of each metal item, ...” (i.e., creating a portfolio), and in claim 15, the step of “… displaying the portfolio information set via a user interface that includes item descriptions, individual prices, ...” (i.e., displaying the portfolio) are all processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Providing an investment portfolio to a user based on the user information is a most fundamental commercial process.
This is an abstract concept with nothing more and is also considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In dependent claims 5-15 and 17-23, the step claimed are rejected under the same analysis and rationale as the independent claims 4 and 16 above. Merely claiming the same process using the data associated with the plurality of metal items in order to provide an investment portfolio to a user based on the user information does not change the abstract idea without an inventive concept or significantly more. Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Therefore, claims 4-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon herein but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM, 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, Bennett M. Sigmond can be reached on (303)297-4411. 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.
/YONGSIK PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3694 May 7, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights