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 amendment filed 10/21/2025.
Claims 4 and 16 have been amended. Claims 4-23 are pending and have been examined on the merits (claims 4 and 16 being independent).
The amendment filed 10/21/2025 to the claims has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered.
The previous drawing objection has been withdrawn due to the amendments (see Applicant’s remarks, page 9).
The previous claim objection has been withdrawn due to the amendments (see Applicant’s remarks, page 9).
The Examiner respectfully rescinds the 35 USC 103 rejection in view of the amendments of claims 4 and 16 and arguments on pages 13-16 in Applicant’s remarks.
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 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained and clarified in view of the USPTO MPEP 2106.
Applicant’s arguments (see Applicant’s remarks, pages 9-13)
(1) Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's assessment that the claims recite a judicial exception. The Examiner states that "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." (see page 10), are not found persuasive.
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 at least a processor. 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 amended independent claims 4 and 16 recite specific technical limitations that integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, amended claim 4 recites "wherein the processor is configured to: maintain a real-time connection with multiple metal item trading platforms; continuously update the metal item percent database with real-time pricing and availability data from the trading platforms; and dynamically recalculate optimal metal items based on real-time changes in metal prices and availability."” (see pages 10-12), are not found persuasive.
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 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. 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. 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 to…” 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 “Even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea, the additional elements recited by amended claims 4 and 16 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The real-time connection maintenance, continuous data updating, and dynamic recalculation capabilities represent concrete improvements to computer functionality that are not merely routine or conventional. " (see page 13), are not found persuasive.
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 over generic computer networks with generic computer components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As the recited claim in independent claims 4 and 6, “correlating the indicator to a tier in a metal item percent database based on a weighted combination of risk tolerance levels and investment thresholds;”, the subject matter is not properly described in the application as filed, and provide an explanation of your position. The recited amendment as highlighted above is not clear as to how to correlate the indicator to a tier in a metal item percent database based on a weighted combination of risk tolerance levels and investment thresholds because the claimed limitations are not described in the application with sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. And, also it is not described with sufficient detail beyond the claimed function being repeated in the written description.
As the recited claim in independent claims 4 and 6, “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; and iteratively allocating the supplemental metal items to minimize the fractional remainder; wherein the processor is configured to: maintain a real-time connection with multiple metal item trading platforms; continuously update the metal item percent database with real-time pricing and availability data from the trading platforms; and dynamically recalculate optimal metal items based on real-time changes in metal prices and availability.”, the subject matter is not properly described in the application as filed, and provide an explanation of your position. The recited amendment as highlighted above is not clear as to how to calculate a fractional remainder, select supplemental metal items from a same series, allocate the supplemental metal items to minimize the fractional remainder, maintain a real-time connection with multiple metal item trading platforms, update the metal item percent database with real-time pricing and availability data from the trading platforms, and recalculate optimal metal items based on real-time changes in metal prices and availability because the claimed limitations are not described in the application with sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. And, also it is not described with sufficient detail beyond the claimed function being repeated in the written description
Dependent claims (5-15 and 17-23) stand rejected also, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
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, calculating, and determining. 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 1 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…, receiving… user information…, calculating… an indicator…, correlating… the indicator…, determining… a set of optimal metal items…, selecting… a first and a second metal item…, calculating… first allocated percentage…, determining… the set of optimal metal items…, calculating… a fractional remainder…, selecting… supplemental metal items.., allocating… supplemental metal items…, maintaining… real-time connection…, and recalculating optimal metal items…
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.
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 over generic computer networks with generic computer components.
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.
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 extension fee 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 YONG S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-8349. The examiner can normally be reached on 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
December 30, 2025
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694