DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 18/585,913 was filed on 02/23/2024, and claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application 63/447,866, filed 02/23/2023.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 01/06/2026.
Claim 1 is pending, of which claim 1 is independent.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
Based on the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
In regards to Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, independent claim 1 is a method claim.
For the sake of compact prosecution, we continue with the Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” analysis.
Step 2A, prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?”
In regards to Step 2A, prongs 1 and 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the abstract idea elements recited in independent claim 1 are shown in italic font. (The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in italic and underlined font):
In regards to claim 1:
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implementable method of automatically constructing an efficient frontier investment portfolio investment allocation, the method comprising the steps of:
compiling, with a computing circuit, an electronic history comprising:
(a) at least one identifier of an investor; and
(b) data identifying the investor's investment preferences, including selected assets for an initial investment portfolio and corresponding asset weights, and risk tolerance;
storing with the computing circuit, said electronic history in an electronic memory device;
generating, with the computing circuit on a display device, a user interface within which is displayed input fields for the user to input said investor investment preferences and risk tolerance;
receiving with the computing circuit from the user, via the user interface and user input fields, a selection of a first investor preference and tolerance;
running, with the computing circuit, full-scale-optimization simulations on combinations of asset classes;
storing, with the computing circuit in the electronic memory device, a respective optimal asset allocation for each simulation;
in response to the selected assets, the corresponding asset weights, and the stored optimal asset allocations, determining with the computing circuit, a performance of the initial investment portfolio;
in response to the selected assets, generating with the computing circuit, an efficient frontier investment portfolio each including a full spectrum of possible investments in same asset classes as the selected assets;
generating, with the computing circuit on the display device, a plot of the generated efficient frontier and the determined performance of the initial investment portfolio;
generating, with the computing circuit on the display device, at least one field that allows the investor an option to select a portfolio along the efficient frontier instead of the initial investment portfolio;
in response to the investor selecting an investment portfolio along the efficient frontier, storing, with the computing circuit in the electronic memory device, a representation of the selected investment portfolio; and
else storing, with the computing circuit in the electronic memory device, a representation of the initial investment portfolio.
More specifically, claim 1 recites an abstract idea: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", specifically “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)”, or “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (Including Social Activities, Teaching, and Following Rules or Instructions)” as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
“running, with the computing circuit, full-scale-optimization simulations on combinations of asset classes”.
“in response to the selected assets, the corresponding asset weights, and the stored optimal asset allocations, determining with the computing circuit, a performance of the initial investment portfolio”.
“in response to the selected assets, generating with the computing circuit, an efficient frontier investment portfolio each including a full spectrum of possible investments in same asset classes as the selected assets”.
“generating, with the computing circuit on the display device, a plot of the generated efficient frontier and the determined performance of the initial investment portfolio”.
Moreover, claims 1-20 recite “Mathematical Concepts", specifically “Mathematical Relationships”, “Mathematical Formulas or Equations”, and “Mathematical Calculations”, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) Part (IV), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The mathematic elements include:
“running, with the computing circuit, full-scale-optimization simulations on combinations of asset classes”.
“in response to the selected assets, the corresponding asset weights, and the stored optimal asset allocations, determining with the computing circuit, a performance of the initial investment portfolio”.
“in response to the selected assets, generating with the computing circuit, an efficient frontier investment portfolio each including a full spectrum of possible investments in same asset classes as the selected assets”.
“generating, with the computing circuit on the display device, a plot of the generated efficient frontier and the determined performance of the initial investment portfolio”.
The “additional elements” include: “A computer-implementable method”, “a computing circuit”, “an electronic memory device”, “a display device”, and “a user interface”.
Moreover, “additional extra-solution elements” include: “compiling … an electronic history comprising: (a) at least one identifier of an investor; and (b) data identifying the investor's investment preferences, including selected assets for an initial investment portfolio and corresponding asset weights, and risk tolerance”, “storing … said electronic history in an electronic memory device”, “generating … a user interface within which is displayed input fields for the user to input said investor investment preferences and risk tolerance”, “receiving with the computing circuit from the user, via the user interface and user input fields, a selection of a first investor preference and tolerance”, “storing … a respective optimal asset allocation for each simulation”, “generating … at least one field that allows the investor an option to select a portfolio along the efficient frontier instead of the initial investment portfolio”, “storing … a representation of the selected investment portfolio”, and “storing … a representation of the initial investment portfolio”.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
In regards to Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements (“A computer-implementable method”, “a computing circuit”, “an electronic memory device”, “a display device”, and “a user interface”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“compiling … an electronic history comprising: (a) at least one identifier of an investor; and (b) data identifying the investor's investment preferences, including selected assets for an initial investment portfolio and corresponding asset weights, and risk tolerance”, “storing … said electronic history in an electronic memory device”, “generating … a user interface within which is displayed input fields for the user to input said investor investment preferences and risk tolerance”, “receiving with the computing circuit from the user, via the user interface and user input fields, a selection of a first investor preference and tolerance”, “storing … a respective optimal asset allocation for each simulation”, “generating … at least one field that allows the investor an option to select a portfolio along the efficient frontier instead of the initial investment portfolio”, “storing … a representation of the selected investment portfolio”, and “storing … a representation of the initial investment portfolio”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis is: “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
In regards to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" (“A computer-implementable method”, “a computing circuit”, “an electronic memory device”, “a display device”, and “a user interface”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“compiling … an electronic history comprising: (a) at least one identifier of an investor; and (b) data identifying the investor's investment preferences, including selected assets for an initial investment portfolio and corresponding asset weights, and risk tolerance”, “storing … said electronic history in an electronic memory device”, “generating … a user interface within which is displayed input fields for the user to input said investor investment preferences and risk tolerance”, “receiving with the computing circuit from the user, via the user interface and user input fields, a selection of a first investor preference and tolerance”, “storing … a respective optimal asset allocation for each simulation”, “generating … at least one field that allows the investor an option to select a portfolio along the efficient frontier instead of the initial investment portfolio”, “storing … a representation of the selected investment portfolio”, and “storing … a representation of the initial investment portfolio”), these are recognized as such by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “storing” step, see the court cases Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory).
More specifically, in regards to the ““compiling … an electronic history” and “receiving” steps, see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to the “generating … a user interface”, “generating … at least one field”, and “displaying” steps, see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Holding that the claimed menu graphic user interface is an abstract idea under 35 USC §101, because claimant "[did] not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have these features, but instead merely claims the resulting systems").
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0091605 A1 to Labe Jr. et al. (“Labe”. Eff. Filed on Nov. 1, 2000. Published on Jul. 11, 2002) in view of US 2008/0243716 A1 to Ouimet et al. (“Ouimet”. Eff. Filed on Nov. 28, 2007. Published on Oct. 2, 2008).
In regards to claim 1,
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implementable method of automatically constructing an efficient frontier investment portfolio investment allocation, the method comprising the steps of:
compiling, with a computing circuit, an electronic history comprising:
(a) at least one identifier of an investor; and
(See Labe, para. [0049]: “After login 32, a user may commence to input the user's investment profile 46, which shall be understood to mean any settings or inputs which will customize the output of the invention in accordance to the user's inputs. An input comprising the investment profile 46 may be entered by the user, by the service provider, or by a combination of both. A service provider may choose to provide default settings for each input, which may be overridden by a user. The specific nature of each of the inputs may vary depending on the specific embodiment of the invention implemented by a service provider. Several possible inputs comprising a user's investment profile will now be described in reference to the embodiment of the invention shown in FIG. 2.”)
(See Labe, para. [0051]: “The service provider may implement the invention in such a manner that the selection of an asset allocation category in 34 incorporates all the default constraints necessary to design a portfolio, enabling the user to avoid having to enter any additional inputs. The asset allocation categories in 34 may also provide model asset class allocations for the optimization. The optimization would then be constrained so that the portfolios generated in accordance with the invention would have the same or similar asset class allocation recommendation as the model selected in 34.”)
(b) data identifying the investor's investment preferences, including selected assets for an initial investment portfolio and corresponding asset weights, and risk tolerance;
(See Labe, para. [0050]: “As an element of his or her investment profile, a user may select an asset allocation category, strategy, or model in 34. A service provider may choose to create several categories of asset allocation models which represent similar users' investment goals. A user would then select a model in 34 which he or she feels best identifies his or her investment goals from the list of models provided. Instead of providing a list of asset allocation models, the service provider may alternatively furnish the user with a questionnaire in 34 which will identify a particular asset allocation model that may be the most appropriate for the user.”)
(See Labe, para. [0058]: “Additional elements in 42 which may comprise the user's investment profile 46 include the investor's tolerances of features such as risk and expected return about an optimal portfolio. These tolerances may be used during identification of near-optimal portfolios or during identification of recommended portfolios from a constrained efficient frontier. For example, a user may input a risk tolerance of 0.05% about the optimal. If the risk of an optimal portfolio is 0.70%, the risk range of an acceptable near-optimal portfolio would be 0.70%±0.05%=0.65% to 0.75%. A user may also input an expected return tolerance to additionally define the output of the invention. When the optimal return of a portfolio is 1.0%, an expected return tolerance of 0.1% indicates that an allocation of assets may have a range of expected returns from 0.9% to 1.1%. These inputs in 42 may be entered by the user or by the service provider, or may be incorporated as part of an asset allocation model previously selected by the user in 34.”)
(See Labe, para. [0069]: “In the embodiment of FIG. 3, an initial set of constrained optimal allocations is generated in 64 based upon the user's investment profile 46 and any additional model data 62 that may be required. This set of allocations in 64 may be considered as representing a constrained efficient frontier of the universe of assets selected by the user as part of the user's investment profile 46. The set of constrained optimal allocations (the constrained efficient frontier) will have taken into account the user's preferences, such as the number of assets to include in a portfolio. In addition to the constrained optimal allocations 64, an unconstrained efficient frontier is generated in concert with the identification of recommended and alternative portfolios.”)
(See Labe, para. [0085]: “In this embodiment of the invention, a mean-variance optimization is enhanced to include asset class factors. An overall efficient frontier for N number of assets may be constructed by solving a standard quadratic programming problem that determines the weight wi for each asset to minimize the variance for a given return R.”)
(See Labe, para. [0107]: “FIG. 6 shows a flowchart depicting a process of generating an asset factor covariance matrix in 116, the matrix being used in a mean-variance optimization embodiment of the present invention. The user's investment profile 46, previously described in FIG. 2, is used in conjunction with required model data 62 to generate the matrix in 116. The required model data 62 may comprise items such as asset factor weights, asset returns, and asset index returns. The user's investment profile 46 may comprise settings and user preferences on the number, type, and fee basis of the assets to include in the optimization.”)
(See Labe, para. [0124]: “To recognize that certain assets may be considered as a set of asset classes, the chromosome strands that are generated in each iteration may be broken down into their underlying asset classes, and the combination of these asset classes may be evaluated to determine the entire strand's (portfolio's) risk and expected return levels. Each asset class is weighted to enable the chromosome or portfolio to reflect the user's asset distribution preferences in the investment profile.”)
(See Labe, para. [0131]: “In generating one or more near-optimal allocations in 136, the algorithm may perform multiple passes during optimization, for example starting with a portfolio with the lowest known risk and returns and maximizing the return, and then starting with a portfolio with the highest known risk and returns and minimizing the risk. Ultimately, the portfolios which are recommended to the user in 142 are the most fit, that is, that have the highest returns for the investor's maximum risk tolerance.”)
storing with the computing circuit, said electronic history in an electronic memory device;
(See Labe, para. [0035]: “FIG. 1 is a hardware diagram of an embodiment of a system according to the present invention. The system comprises a server component 10 and a client component 20. The server 10 comprises a first processor 12, a first storage device 14, and a first communications access device 16. The client system 20 comprises a second processor 22, a user input device 24, a display device 26, a second communications access device 28, and a second storage device 30. The client communications access device 28 and the server communications access device 16 are connected via a communications medium 40, referred to as a network.”)
(See Labe, para. [0042]: “The first and second storage devices 14 and 30 may include conventional devices such as memory, hard drives, optical drives, and CD-ROM drives for providing data storage, warehousing, and retrieval capabilities. Data may be stored on the devices 14 and 30 in a form accessible by a database such as Corel Paradox™, IBM DB2™ or Oracle Database 8i™. The first and second communications access devices 16 and 28 may include conventional devices such as a modem, network interface card or port, or wireless transmitter for providing computer-to-computer communication capabilities.”)
… generating, with the computing circuit on the display device, at least one field that allows the investor an option to select a portfolio along the efficient frontier instead of the initial investment portfolio;
(See Labe, para. [0070]: “After the constrained efficient frontier and the unconstrained efficient frontier are generated in 64, for example using a form of mean-variance optimization, each constrained allocation is then evaluated in 66 in view of the user's investment profile 46 and the unconstrained efficient frontier to identify in 68 whether the allocation will be recommended and presented to the user in 70. One or more allocations on the constrained efficient frontier which lie closest to the unconstrained efficient frontier may be selected as part of a set of recommended portfolios to the user. For example, a constrained optimal allocation which has the same or similar risk and expected return as an allocation on the unconstrained efficient frontier, may be selected for inclusion in the set of recommended portfolios which will be displayed to the user in 70.)”)
in response to the investor selecting an investment portfolio along the efficient frontier, storing, with the computing circuit in the electronic memory device, a representation of the selected investment portfolio; and
else storing, with the computing circuit in the electronic memory device, a representation of the initial investment portfolio.
(See Labe, para. [0035]: “FIG. 1 is a hardware diagram of an embodiment of a system according to the present invention. The system comprises a server component 10 and a client component 20. The server 10 comprises a first processor 12, a first storage device 14, and a first communications access device 16. The client system 20 comprises a second processor 22, a user input device 24, a display device 26, a second communications access device 28, and a second storage device 30. The client communications access device 28 and the server communications access device 16 are connected via a communications medium 40, referred to as a network.
However, under a conservative interpretation of Labe, it could be argued that Labe does not explicitly teach the italicized portions below, which are taught by Ouimet:
generating, with the computing circuit on a display device, a user interface within which is displayed input fields for the user to input said investor investment preferences and risk tolerance;
receiving with the computing circuit from the user, via the user interface and user input fields, a selection of a first investor preference and tolerance;
(See Ouiment, para. [0090]: “FIG. 17 illustrates a possible representation of an optional graphical approach 135 to assist the user in selecting a portfolio from a set of optimized portfolios 133. In this approach, the user views multiple portfolios where, for example, portfolio risk versus return 136, income versus return 137, and/or other investment strategies (e.g., defined in the input process 101) are represented graphically to the user (e.g., in the same user-interface window). The user can interact with the graphs, for example, through the use of a slider or other mechanism, to select a portfolio consistent with the user's strategic investment targets.”)
(See Ouiment, para. [0066]: “Users can optionally develop an initial risk profile 125, as shown in FIG. 12, which can include, but not be limited to, an investment risk tolerance questionnaire 126 or another method which can allow for the quantification of an initial risk tolerance parameter or domain 127. In one embodiment, an initial risk scenario can be displayed to a user to initially define his or her risk tolerance profile at a coarse level. Next, a risk scenario with more detail can optionally be presented to the user, which would further refine the user's risk tolerance profile. Subsequent steps, each providing more narrowly-defined risk tolerance scenarios, would finally permit the system to converge down to a substantially-detailed risk tolerance profile to provide a risk tolerance parameter 127 unique to that user. The risk tolerance parameter 127 can be graphically displayed to the user when the user views potential selected portfolios so the user can better understand the risk profile the user has defined by the foregoing process. If the user desires, for example, a greater portfolio expected return, the user can better visualize the need to accommodate more risk via this display within the graphical user interface.”)
running, with the computing circuit, full-scale-optimization simulations on combinations of asset classes;
(See Ouiment, para. [0039]: “Some embodiments of the invention allow users to define their investing strategies and rules within a graphical user interface. Some embodiments of the invention leverage mathematical optimization to design diverse portfolios which satisfy investor's rules and strategies. Some embodiments of the invention utilize in one approach a diagonal asset-asset correlation matrix that provides for fast measurement of the correlation matrix, as well as fast portfolio optimization. Some embodiments of the invention run “what-if” simulations which will graphically compare multiple portfolios, visualizing strategic tradeoffs.”)
storing, with the computing circuit in the electronic memory device, a respective optimal asset allocation for each simulation;
(See Ouiment, para. [0071]: “The optimization process 103 can determine optimal asset allocations which maximize user-defined strategies while satisfying user-defined rules and constraints.”)
(See Ouiment, para. [0093]: “The example in FIG. 19 shows that Portfolio 4 has a higher risk-adjusted return than Portfolio 4′, but that Portfolio 4′ can be chosen as it allocates a higher percentage of the portfolio towards renewable energy assets. In one embodiment, the optimization and portfolio selection processes generate numerous portfolios, so that moving the slider from Portfolio 4 to Portfolio 4′ does not require re-running the optimization process 103. Instead, the opportunity curve 148 can be generated from the stored portfolios already available. The user can travel along the opportunity curve 148 with a slider 149 or other mechanism and view the potential portfolios and related returns in making their decisions as to which portfolio and associated forecast return to accept. The curves 148 can include, for example, portfolio forecasted return versus risk, income, and any other user defined strategies as established, for example, in the user input interface process 101. By traveling along the curve 148, for example by using a user-interface point-and-click slider 149, the user can change the strategic weighting (λs) of that specific strategic measure. As an example, after the user moves the slider 149 to an 80% thematic allocation, the portfolio selection process uses the stored portfolios (with their stored corresponding strategic weights) to generate multiple portfolios for a range of user-selected strategic weights (which correspond to various thematic allocations).”)
in response to the selected assets, the corresponding asset weights, and the stored optimal asset allocations, determining with the computing circuit, a performance of the initial investment portfolio;
(See Ouiment, para. [0081]: “The term “strategic weight” (λs) refers to the weighting factors that are used within the objective function in developing optimized portfolios. These factors in effect lend a measure of “weight” to the strategic measures and can be adjusted to add or lessen the influence of the strategy in the development of portfolios for selection. In order for the optimization process 103 to generate multiple portfolios for a range of strategic measures, a range of strategic weights are used within the objective function to generate the portfolios. The process by which strategic weights are determined and used in one embodiment is now described below.”)
(See Ouiment, para. [0082]: “Initially, the strategic weights are, for example, set by default. The strategic weight values can be numerical ranges with preset steps and, for example, populate a strategic weight sampling table, as shown below in Table 3.”)
in response to the selected assets, generating with the computing circuit, an efficient frontier investment portfolio each including a full spectrum of possible investments in same asset classes as the selected assets;
(See Ouiment, para. [0092]: “Using the data, information, and method described above, the process has developed multiple portfolios from which the user can view, filter, and select. Further refinement and interaction can now occur using the concept of the theme-based efficient frontier. In some embodiments, the theme-based efficient frontier is a method for displaying a plurality of portfolios which provides a representation of their forecasted returns based on their inherent thematic allocations. This is distinguished from the existing state of the art developed within Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT). Once the user has selected a specific portfolio to display in the display process 104, the user can further refine the strategic limitations and/or the rules-based numerical constraints to determine how such changes might alter the selected portfolio's allocations and other data, including, for example, portfolio return, overall risk, projected portfolio income, thematic allocations, as well as any other user defined strategies. In one embodiment, a user display (e.g., a user interface window) shows portfolio return versus a specific thematic allocation, as shown in FIG. 19. This display can include, for example, but not limited to, a tabular summary 146 of the selected portfolio's data, and a graphical view or representation 147 of the portfolio's opportunity curves 148, which is a theme-based efficient frontier and which illustrate where the selected portfolio lies along these curves 148. The theme-based efficient frontier, shown as opportunity curves 148, can provide a graphical display or other user interface that shows the user the tradeoffs between portfolio return and selected strategies.”)
generating, with the computing circuit on the display device, a plot of the generated efficient frontier and the determined performance of the initial investment portfolio;
(See Ouiment, para. [0090]: “FIG. 17 illustrates a possible representation of an optional graphical approach 135 to assist the user in selecting a portfolio from a set of optimized portfolios 133. In this approach, the user views multiple portfolios where, for example, portfolio risk versus return 136, income versus return 137, and/or other investment strategies (e.g., defined in the input process 101) are represented graphically to the user (e.g., in the same user-interface window). The user can interact with the graphs, for example, through the use of a slider or other mechanism, to select a portfolio consistent with the user's strategic investment targets.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method for “Asset allocation optimizer”, as taught by Labe above, with “Investment management system and method”, as further taught by Ouimet above, because both references are in the same art of asset portfolio simulation and optimization, and because Ouimet describes the user interface in greater detail than Labe does.
Response to Amendments
Re: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The amended 35 USC § 101 rejection of claim 1 was necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
Re: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The amended 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 1 was necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Christine Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103 or at christine.behncke@uspto.gov. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights